Interesting post over at WUWT concerning climate sensitivity to co2 and where the IPCC assumptions are wrong. People here will probably be aware of the arguments such as there being no evidence that half of the predicted warming due to positive feedback involving water vapour is taking place.

There are lots of published papers, articles, blogs etc all questioning the standard IPCC claims. I would even say that there is now quite a good understanding of the factors that control our climate and the relatively insignificant part that carbon dioxide plays in it.

What is the response by the scientific community, the great and the good? Zilch.

What is the blockage? What can be done about it?

Perhaps in the US, Trump is beginning to challenge things. What about in the UK?

Sir Mark Walport, Chief Scientific Adviser to Government, is a medical man and is not going to speak out against the RS support of AGW (under Nurse). I guess that Government would not agree that rain is wet without first confirming it with the Met Office. The Government and the Met office both ignore everything I've referred to above.

What should be done about this? What can be done? Do we need a high profile champion to challenge the Met Office? What does the Met Office think now that the Dame has gone?

stewgreen
Does this help

since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own.

as a self descrbed little Scotlander?

golf charlie
Locals call them "Nid de Poule" Chicken's nest

Charlie Boy called in the chocolate corps for not being able to prove their cocoa comes from sustainable fams , not cut down forest.
Doh if you licence a farm the corrupt cocoa will still somehow come into that sustainable farms barn,
...You'd have to get hold of that countries corruption first

stewgreen - indeed:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/16/shocker-little-known-financial-stability-board-has-huge-climate-deceit/

Supertroll & stewgreen

Zero is also a useful number to apply to Global Warming, and to the usefulness of Climate Science. Perhaps a bunch of zeroes, should be the collective noun for Climate Scientists, but I am sure they would want to adjust that figure too.

Would remind you that a few weeks ago Melvin Bragg had a programme about Arab science in which zero was discussed. The indian zero was identified as merely a spacer to distinguish between, say 11 and 101, and was not the zero concept of something between +1 and -1.