Have you viewed the recent talk given to the GWPF by Roger Pielke Jr? You can access it here. It is quite a lengthy video including about an hour of questions. I found it irrelevant as it was about reaching a "consensus" on how to deal with climate policy, and so Pielke presumed that it was necessary to deal with a problem, whereas I do not accept that there is a problem. Yes I accept that CO2 may cause slight warming as its concentration in the atmosphere doubles from 0.03% to 0.06%, but as that is predicted to be around 1 degree C, and that other factors may even reduce that or even eliminate it, there is no reason for a policy at this time.

I found it hard to hear the questions from the audience as they were not given a microphone and many of them did not seem to have good diction. From the answers given I do not think any of them put forward my point above, which I found a little surprising as I would have thought that among climate sceptics a lot would share my view. No one also suggested that the political "solutions" put forward, such as the Paris accord, were not fair and neither did they work in terms of preventing future increase in CO2 world-wide.

In fact the world’s governments can never reach a total agreement on any issue, which is bad news if it were imperative that they did in order to save us from any real threat. Mr Pielke tries to be reasonable by wanting to reach a consensus, but it is no surprise to me that he is disliked by the main protagonists from both sides. He reminds me of the UK prime minister who tried to reach agreement with Hitler just before the start of the second world war, Neville Chamberlain. He was a decent man who wanted to avoid war, but it could not be avoided.