It appears that the Earth has now gone 15 years with no measurable warming.
I was always a fence-sitter on Global Warming, although I (mostly) got off the fence a few years ago when enough information came out to make me question whether there was any reliable information coming out of that sector at all. It became increasingly obvious that a tiny group of scientists controlled all the funding and access to the data and dominated all public dissemination of the information, and began dodging anyone who dared call them into question, while a group of their supporters began vilifying and outright bullying reasonably intelligent and qualified people who questioned their thinking.
The angry bloviating was a red flag, but the killer for me on their credibility came from the disturbingly closed nature of this group of researchers. That these Global Warming scientists all worked together now and then is not fishy–in fact it would be bizarre if they didn’t. But they had repeatedly proven to be a tiny and impenetrable elite, routinely fighting all demands for independent review, and strongly resisting efforts to have them reveal their data and their programming code so that it could be independently scrutinized by computer scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, or other qualified parties to see if their methodologies were sound and their results reproducible.
I mean, these guys were not just getting millions in taxpayer funding, but they were making public policy recommendations which could potentially cost trillions, and would affect the entire world population. Being as transparent as possible in those circumstances would certainly seem like a high priority, especially in nations with this annoying mentality that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and where the governed have this pesky habit of doing things like voting.
Here’s a thought: if you do not want taxpayer scrutiny, stop demanding taxpayer money. Furthermore, if you are going to make broad sweeping recommendations for public policy change, do not act outraged when those who are governed ask pointed questions as to whether or not your proposals are really the wisest use of public and private resources.
You don’t get to play with taxpayer money, jump into the political process of demanding political action, then put a shield on your chest and bellow, “I AM A SCIENTIST AND I AM NOT TO BE QUESTIONED YOU TINY-BRAINED FOOLS!” Well, honestly you can do that, but you tend to look foolish and should not be surprised when the reaction is not very positive.
Perhaps we should begin the task of honestly discussing whether attacking CO2 should be our #1 air quality issue? Having less CO2 in the atmosphere certainly seems like a reasonable idea–it’s probably not wise to keep increasing atmospheric CO2 at a rapid pace–but it would seem to me that things like safe drinking water, decent food, and overall air quality should be our primary concerns, not just this one gas. Is that such a radical thought?