This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Lovely post. Great to get a peek into the world of sanity.
Yes it's a good set of responses from wmbriggs. However it's not really a set of questions posed to climate sceptics, it is intended mainly for climate scientists to answer.
I must admit that I'm less impressed by Willis Eschenbach's answers to his own set of questions, particularly his rather strange responses to the two 'preface questions'.
Eschenbach's answer to the first preface question is to declare himself as a passionate environmentalist, inspired by reading Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" (the book that kick-started the modern environmental movement) when it came out in 1962.
Now you do get some AGW sceptics claiming to be environmentalists, but invariably they mean 'old school' environmentalism. Old school environmentalism is mainly concerned with doing things like reducing pollution and providing green public spaces. It is much quieter, far more rational and far less political than 'modern' environmentalism. The starting point for modern environmentalism is that man-made chemicals are bad (like DDT that features in Carson's book) and there's a pantheist religious quality inherent in it that originates from the involvement of the 1960s hippy movement. Eschenbach is clearly identifying himself as a 'modern' environmentalist or 'Greenie'. If he is, then he's the first Greenie I've ever heard of who is also an AGW sceptic. I have the suspicion that he's just claiming to be a Greenie to wrong-foot his opponents.
Eschenbach's answer to the second preface question is to declare that he is neither an AGW supporter or AGW sceptic, he is a 'heretic'.
Now a heretic is just a sceptic who puts some effort into making their sceptical views known, and may even enjoy the notorietry that may be associated with the sceptical viewpoint. Heretics are just a subset of sceptics.