I think that it is fine and commendable to be skeptical in all things–when it is actually skepticism and not cynical propaganda.
With that in mind, I believe it is disingenuous for a man to claim authority and make assertions based entirely upon skepticism but that have no scientific basis of any kind. Additionally, consider one who dirties himself by being directly on the payroll of interests who would benefit from both his so-called “assessment” and upon his political proximity to legislators.
Objective, eh? Hmm. Right.
The most basic research, in my opinion, begins and ends with data. If a scientist has no data, he has nothing; and industrialist, tax evaders, and right-wing criminals have less than nothing: They have manufactured data of political expediency.
Having gotten that off my chest, I’d like to turn to saner sources to begin a personal research path toward the matter of “Global Warming”…
One could start here (for instance), follow the references both pro and con, both inside and out of the articles, and onward to the books that are referenced, the data that is displayed and analyzed:
‘”the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”. Note that “balance of evidence” is not intended to suggest unambiguous proof;…’