People on both sides of the global warming debate have seriously and egregiously tried to bully me. The phrase "settled science" annoys and disturbs me to the point that I resent the positions of people who use it. Further, the behaviour of some of the scientists supporting the IPCC just adds to the skepticism one must have for their views.
At the same time, receding glaciers and the dramatic loss of glacial shelf ice in the Antarctic make it difficult to be completely oblivious to, or in denial about, the possibilities that global warming has happened and may continue.
My own views are far from settled [see this, which I wrote nearly 5 years ago].
Over the past few years, I have been drawn increasingly to the writings of Bjorn Lomborg. He takes a very detached view, not necessarily pushing any agenda other than analysis and dealing with feasible alternatives. Recently he pointed to this interview with Judith Curry. Excerpts:
TONY THOMAS: If the skeptic/orthodox spectrum is a range from 1 (intense skeptic) to 10 (intensely IPCC orthodox), where on the scale would you put yourself
(a) as at 2009
(b) as at 2014,
and why has there been a shift (if any)?
JUDITH CURRY: In early 2009, I would have rated myself as 7; at this point I would rate myself as a 3. Climategate and the weak response of the IPCC and other scientists triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC, and made me look at the science much more sceptically. ...
THOMAS: Re the halt to warming in the past 15-17 years, has this been adequately explained to the public? If it continues a few more years, is that the end of the orthodox case?
CURRY: Regarding the hiatus in warming, I would say that this has not been adequately explained to the public, the IPCC certainly gave the issue short shrift.
The hiatus is serving to highlight the importance of natural climate variability. If the hiatus continues a few more years, climate model results will seriously be called into question. When trying to understand and model a complex system, there is, unfortunately, no simple test for rejecting a hypothesis or a model.
THOMAS: What empirical evidence is there, as distinct from modelling, that ‘missing heat’ has gone into the deep oceans?
CURRY: Basically, none. Observations below 2 km in the ocean are exceedingly rare, and it is only since 2005 that we have substantial coverage below 700 metres. ...
THOMAS: Since the first IPCC report a quarter century ago, what has been the most significant advance in the case that 50+% of recent warming is human-caused?
CURRY: The period of global warming from 1976-1998.
THOMAS: Similarly, what has been the most significant advance in the case that 50+% of recent warming is NOT human-caused?
CURRY: The stagnation in global temperatures since 1998 is causing scientists to take a much closer look at natural climate variability.
Contrast the statements and analysis of Lomborg or Curry with the histrionics of Desmond Tutu, who clearly has little idea about economics OR science.