I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

It is probably worth reiterating my position on anthropogenic climate change (ACC).

First, there are standard references. The IPCC WG1 report; David Houghton's specific text on global warming; textbooks on climate science. There are other references, such as the recent background material to the Nobel prize awarded to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann. Second, I am impressed in particular by the work on the increase in the risk of extreme events. According to a recent survey, by far the majority of reputable published climate science in the last ten years is consistent with the material in these sources. Indeed, why should one expect it to be otherwise?

Second, there are five voluble contributors who appear to want to deny the climate science recognised by the above sources. Two of them have given very cursory, incomplete technical reasons for that; two of them have given none; one I do not regard as a genuine contributor.

Third, I have done my very best to elicit from those two who have proferred technical reasons what their beef with the established science is. To no avail. I have set out a list of propositions for Roger Bryant so he can show me with which of those he disagrees. No answer so far. He did nominally answer a specific question as to why he disagrees with the Karoly/Stott interpretation of recent CET data, but his answer made no sense to me. David Stone raised the Mauna Loa Keeling data for 2020 twice. Apparently he thinks that they represent a counterexample to the established climate science. I have asked what he would have expected the data show, and why. Again, no answer. 

This is very disappointing. I am used to more cooperative technical interactions on professional forums. I had expected better from the IET. I do have my view, of course, as to why Roger and David don't answer those specific questions. 

But it is not only disappointing. Almost all the energy transition paths towards carbon neutrality involve electricity. This is the UK electrotechnical professional society. The speed with which such a transition can be accomplished, and the trade-offs necessary to get it accomplished faster or more slowly are key issues which society needs to address. The IET included. It should be possible to have a reasonable discussion about it, and other pressing matters, on the IET WWW forums. But it appears currently not to be possible. I would welcome any serious ideas about how to enable such a discussion. 

It is probably worth reiterating my position on anthropogenic climate change (ACC).

First, there are standard references. The IPCC WG1 report; David Houghton's specific text on global warming; textbooks on climate science. There are other references, such as the recent background material to the Nobel prize awarded to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann. Second, I am impressed in particular by the work on the increase in the risk of extreme events. According to a recent survey, by far the majority of reputable published climate science in the last ten years is consistent with the material in these sources. Indeed, why should one expect it to be otherwise?

Second, there are five voluble contributors who appear to want to deny the climate science recognised by the above sources. Two of them have given very cursory, incomplete technical reasons for that; two of them have given none; one I do not regard as a genuine contributor.

Third, I have done my very best to elicit from those two who have proferred technical reasons what their beef with the established science is. To no avail. I have set out a list of propositions for Roger Bryant so he can show me with which of those he disagrees. No answer so far. He did nominally answer a specific question as to why he disagrees with the Karoly/Stott interpretation of recent CET data, but his answer made no sense to me. David Stone raised the Mauna Loa Keeling data for 2020 twice. Apparently he thinks that they represent a counterexample to the established climate science. I have asked what he would have expected the data show, and why. Again, no answer. 

This is very disappointing. I am used to more cooperative technical interactions on professional forums. I had expected better from the IET. I do have my view, of course, as to why Roger and David don't answer those specific questions. 

But it is not only disappointing. Almost all the energy transition paths towards carbon neutrality involve electricity. This is the UK electrotechnical professional society. The speed with which such a transition can be accomplished, and the trade-offs necessary to get it accomplished faster or more slowly are key issues which society needs to address. The IET included. It should be possible to have a reasonable discussion about it, and other pressing matters, on the IET WWW forums. But it appears currently not to be possible. I would welcome any serious ideas about how to enable such a discussion.