Idiocy trumps science

You feel really ill and want help. Do you go to a doctor with years of medical training and experience, or an English graduate? Well, if you're Craig Mackinlay and chums you'd choose the latter. To get informed opinion on the science of climate change I'd go to a climate scientist. But no, Craig chooses the English specialist.

Net Zero Watch claims to be "highlighting and discussing the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies" - so no bias there then! Real research doesn't start off by taking a polarised view. And who are the prestigious scientists hightlighting and discussing this complex subject?

The director is Dr. Benny Peiser, who studied political science, English, and sports science.

Deputy director is Andrew Montford, a writer, accountant, and Chemistry graduate.

Head of Policy is Harry Wilkinson, who has an (unspecified) degree and as far as I can tell has no climate science knowledge.

Their science editor is Dr. David Whitehouse, PhD in AstroPhysics. A long-time climate change critic.

Their 'Energy Editor' is Dr John Constable, who has a PhD in English and has long been an anti-wind power campaigner (remember, wind power is cheaper than any non-renewable energy technology).

So, undoubtedly some clever (in their field) people, but largely science-ignorant and completely devoid of any climate science experience. Now I am a scientist (to PhD level) with good knowledge of a number of fields, but I would defer to climate scientists to understand the very complex science underpinning climate change. A very small number of these scientists have some doubts about anthropomorphic (i.e. man-made) climate change, but at least they publish their data and reasoning.

The vast majority (more than 99%) of climate scientists agree wholeheartedly with the IPCC prognoses of our future. Remember, 234 leading Earth and client science experts analysed over 14,000 research papers to come to their conclusions. Their analysis and conclusions are public. Anyone can check the figures, argue the hypotheses, make their own judgements.

However Net Zero Watch have no scientific rationale for their position. No evidence to back up their preposterous claims. No people on their staff with the scientific background to debate the complexities of climate change. How many peer reviewed research papers have they read, or written? Would I trust them to have anything worthwhile to say about climate change? No way José.