Thinly veiled attack on the integrity of our climate scientists

IT is mighty rich of Dr Phillip Bratby to disbelieve climate scientists because he thinks that they are producing what their government paymasters expect of them.

Is this the same Dr Phillip Bratby as the retired consultant and member of the Institute of Nuclear Engineers? Should we conclude that consultants in the nuclear industry would provide only the answers that their paymasters wanted? For everyone’s sake, I hope not.

His thinly veiled attack on the integrity of almost all climate scientists because they don’t support his minority view just demonstrates his own standards. Given his insulting response, I feel at liberty to reflect it back to him. Dr Bratby, are you just delivering the conclusions that

CPRE-Devon wants to hear? It seems he was when he provided evidence to the Economics Affairs Committee in 2008. From the weak scientific evidence in that submission, he clearly does not understand the difference between the way model results are interpreted in climate science compared with weather forecasting.

He also suggested we should expect cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles. That prediction has not worked out because the very slow change is no match for the fast warming due to our emissions.

So now he moves on to another theory that it is all the fault of water vapour because CO2 absorption is saturated. He fails to respond to challenges on that.

What can we expect next? Sun spots; CO2 concentrations; the climate is always changing or maybe he will tell us that climate models are inaccurate. We have heard it all before, so go ahead, there are verifiable answers to all this nonsense and readers prepared to share them.

Magi Young Exeter, Devon