Hi AndyG55,
I disagree, I strongly suspect that John Brookes has learnt many things since coming to this site, such as,
[1] The tropospheric hotspot is the fingerprint of man made global warming, and the key indicator of +ve feedback to increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and that it is missing.
[2] That (most?) CAGW sceptics accept that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect, and that it is a reasonable (but unproven) working assumption that CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human industrial emissions.
[3] That increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is good for the biosphere, and could be a net benefit for human society.
[4] That a well formed scientific hypothesis is in principle falsifiable, and that it should provide specific, measurable predictions about future events that can be tested with empirical evidence.
[5] That climate models are not empirical tests, and that climate models have poor skill at predicting the future, which implies that the climate models are loaded with false assumptions about how the climate system actually works.
[6] That there is a PR campaign around Man Made Global Warming that is disconnected with the actual empirical science, but the PR campaign has the louder voice than the empirical science.
[7] That funding for CAGW adherents far outweighs funding for CAGW skeptics.
[8] That (most unhappily) the UNFCCC has a definition of climate change that has nothing to do with actual climate descriptors such as temperature, humidity, etc,
I could go on.
The challenge for John (as I see it – and I could be wrong), is the cognitive dissonance between his abstract, intellectual understanding of the above points, and his visceral, emotional need to subjugate himself to a higher authority.
