Ed,

In CV Independent (20/03/2024), there appeared comment and misquoting, on climate facts I’d presented the previous week. Rebuttal follows.

I’d argue that they’ve got it wrong. Balanced opinion on contentious issues requires unbiased study of available expert knowledge, in search of definitive answers. In contrast, your correspondents have noted that which props up their preferred conclusions, whilst ignoring facts they’re unable to refute.

I did NOT label members of any scientific organisation as fools. It’s my stated belief that pseudo-science has been FOOLISHLY accepted by a significant part of the populace.

I criticised only, the failure to follow scientific procedures, and politically distorted reporting, resident in IPCC climate reports. Nevertheless, it should be noted that none of the institutions I’m accused of having defamed, are engaged in long term climate study. Their focus is on short/medium term.

I did NOT suggest climate ‘extremes’ are ‘business as usual’. I presented evidence that there’s nothing abnormally different in current, compared to past, climate.

The oft quoted 97% of published scientists is false. That figure arose from a poll of 77 persons, many of whom criticised procedural defects, and it was discredited over a decade ago.

Increased CO2 has NOT raised temperature. The opposite is both logical and likely.

The scientific community remains polarised on the, as yet unproven, human causation theory. Science is a long way short, maybe decades, of fully understanding the many climate drivers. Unfounded premature declaration of unanimity hinders research and causes guilt and worry.

Comments:

Discarding that which inconveniently conflicts with organisational preference, is abandonment of scientific principles. A sceptic is somebody requiring proof, as a condition of acceptance as fact. ‘Mumbo-jumbo’ and ‘scientific’ are mutually incompatible terms.

I stand by the facts noted under my name, published in CVI 13/03/2024.

Ray Smith, Iluka