1. Do you distance yourself from the claims by scientists who deliberately exaggerate the rate of warming and the dangers of climate change?
2. Are you prepared to support the efforts of people who want better investigation of dubious claims (which may be fraudulent), and the push to make raw data available for checking?
Clearly there is a great deal more fraud and bordeline practice than I realise, being a child of the relatively innocent sixties when many of us regarded science as a quasi-religous quest for the truth, regulated by the strictest standards. Thanks to Jim Rose in the comments.
Also see http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/news/events/frey.pdf in an excellent academic fraud literature round up found that at one U.S. University:
• 17% of post-doctoral fellows said they would select or omit data to improve results; and
• 81% would select, omit or fabricate data to win research grants.
As one American elite sportsmen said, if you are not cheating, you are not trying. hard enough.
3. Are you prepared to publicly rebuke the non-scientists like Al Gore and Tim Flannery who exaggerate the dangers of climate change?
4. Do you acknowledge the positive effects of mild warming?
5. Do you think there will be more than one or two degrees of warming over the next 100 years?
6. If you accept the high range of warming, say four degrees over the century, (one degree of warming in 25 years) can you explain why we have to take drastic action now instead of waiting to check the actual rise over 20 or 3o years?
7. Can you explain in layman’s language the difficulties and complications of using models to forecast temperature, rainfall, etc?
8. After you have got on top of 7 can you explain why the Garnaut report used a worst case scenario as the basis for his recommendations?
9. Do you acknowledge that criticism and skepticism are the lifeblood of science?
10. Given 9, can you explain to a lay audience why critics and skeptics who operate on a base of evidence and reasonable arguments should be heard (politely)?
10. Do you acknowledge that the reputation of science depends on the integrity of scientists in their willingness to control fraudulent practices, and upon the effective functioning of the institutions of science like conferences and the peer review process?
11. Do you accept that the integrity of scientists and the institutions of science have been challenged by the rise of Big Science (and uncritical “normal” scientists) and by the government funding of Big Science?
12. Are you prepared to resist that challenge, if you can do so without prejudice to your career?
13. Are you prepared to resist that challenge, even if it does prejudice your career (or if retired, your standing in the field)?