Here are the questions I pose to anyone on the topic:
- What percentage of warming is due to CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels?
- What percentage of warming is due to other man-caused reasons?
- What percentage of warming is due to changes in solar activity?
- What percentage of warming is due to changes in other natural reasons?
Given observed questionable surface temperature measurement stations, and a noticeable difference in surface station temperatures and atmospheric temperatures, do Climate Scientist's heavy dependence on surface temperature measurements lead to unreliable results?
Source: New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
Source: 7 questions with John Christy and Roy Spencer: Climate change skeptics for 25 years
Given many Climate Scientists claim solar activity plays no significant role in Climate Change, but other Climate Scientists claim the significant pause in global warming is due to a decline in solar activity, how trustworthy is the climate science regarding solar activity?
Source: New study claims low solar activity caused "the pause" in global temperature – but AGW will return!
Source: Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate
Given one can insert random numbers into Michael Mann's equation and still produce a "Hockey Stick" output, how trustworthy should Dr Mann's science be considered?
Source: Michael Crichton - On Michael Mann's Climate Temperature Graph
Given evidence scientist Keith Briffa selectively picked evidence to support his desired outcome, and discarded evidence which did not support his desired outcome, how trustworthy should Dr Briffa's science be considered?
Source: YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World
Given evidence scientist Philip Jones stated he used Michael Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" of late 20th century cooling to overstate warming in the industrial era, how trustworthy should Dr Jones's science be considered?
Source: Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'
Source: IPCC and the "Trick"
Given climate scientists refused to allow critical peer review of their research, and only allowed it to be peer-reviewed within their tight circle of fellow climate scientists who believed the same way they did, how trustworthy should their science be considered?
Source: The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident
Given climate scientists working at government organizations refused FOIA requests for details of their research, how trustworthy should their science be considered?
Source: Climategate: James Hansen Finds Complying with FOIA To Be Too Much of a Burden
So there it is. Why not more skepticism, not that temperatures are rising, but skepticism of the science? I have said repeatedly, Climate Science is a Social Science, not a Physical Science. It is more about computer methods and curated data, and less about measurement. And other Social Science is held to much greater skepticism than Climate Science.
UPDATE:
Now there is this. The data used to dispute the "pause" in Global Warming is in dispute. By definition, science based on data that is in dispute cannot be considered "settled".
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
