No 'scientific consensus' on global warming issue
Nobody could disagree with your column recently calling for journalists to speak the truth about alleged catastrophic global warming. The rest of it provides an example of why.
The dispute is not whether it is theoretically possible for human activity to have an immeasurably small warming effect (nobody knows or should care) but whether there is any truth to the claims of a "scientific consensus" that we are currently undergoing catastrophic levels of warming.
I have asked journalists, politicians and alarmist lobbyists now totaling in the thousands to name two prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby, who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming and none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.
There is not and never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it would, with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone two. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people and a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.
Neil CraigGlasgow, Scotland