If a climate scientist follows scientific protocol, calls out the assumptions in their predictive models (better yet, call out the possibility that their models may not correspond with real behavior), and do proper peer reviews including people who aren’t excluded based on their AGW views, then I will consider the work to be unbiased.
If people aren’t at least a little confused, then I say that they aren’t reading both sides of the issue. I’d rather be confused and keep turning stones than to place blind faith into whatever IPCC wants me to believe or take this “consensus” as gold.
And, don’t worry, I’ve also read material from reputable scientists also, those who look at the actual data and provide alternative explanations. I was not aware of the astrology history of that author–the material just looked interesting.
And if the Earth does indeed start to cool as a result of a downturn in solar activity, then I’d like to see a refund back to the tax-paying public in the form of $5 Billion dollars paid to IPCC to do scientific research that turned out to be a deliberate scam.
