The long pause in global warming is known to be caused by…..what? No one knows.
The recent floods….caused by a global warming that hasn’t happened for over 16 years? No one knows.
Extreme weather is increasing…due to global warming? Actually it’s not increasing.
CO2 is driving global warming? There’s absolutely no proof of that…the ‘proof’ in fact says any warming causes the release of CO2 rather than the other way round.
Global warming is man-made? There’s no proof of that….no direct link at all.
Global warming is catastrophic? Not so far…quite the opposite.
Islands sinking under rising seas? Kiribati? Maldives? No.
Arctic ice loss will be disastrous? Greenland is called Greenland because it wasn’t always covered in ice…and that wasn’t so long ago.
The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today’s temperatures……did the world end? No.
The Roman warm period ditto.
In 100 years time we know exactly what the climate will be? Do me a favour.
So the ‘science’ is settled.
No, it is. How do I know? The BBC says conclusively that the debate is over...via Bishop Hill:
The BBC’s Feedback programme decided that environmentalist dismay at Lord Lawson’s appearance on the Today programme needed a bit of an airing. Alex Cull has prepared a transcript here.
Jamie Angus: The BBC’s reviewed its coverage of climate change and climate science, and it’s set out some admirably clear guidelines for us to follow. We are able to put on air people who take a differing view from the majority view of climate science. However, that coverage should be proportional, and I think that any reasonable listener who listened to Today’s coverage of climate change, across the past three months, would probably find that Lord Lawson was the only climate sceptic, if you like, who’d appeared in that period. And I think, you know, when Justin and I and the programme team discussed that interview, we thought we’d allowed it to drift too much into a straight yes-no argument about the science. And of course the settled view of the expert scientists is just that – settled, and I believe that our coverage reflects that, over the long term.
So the BBC has only had one climate sceptic on in 3 months? The BBC has clearly decided that journalism is no longer required of it and will solely be providing hype, propaganda and free publicity for the climate lobbyists regardless of the science, or lack of.
Rather at odds with this:
The Australian Attorney General George Brandis, a confirmed upholder of the climate change consensus, has lashed out at the large numbers of his fellow-travellers who seek to silence dissenters.
He said one of the main motivators for his passionate defence of free speech has been the “deplorable” way climate change has been debated and he was “really shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change deniers”.
“One side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong,” he said.
He referred to [Opposition leader Penny Wong] as standing up in the Senate and saying the science is settled as an example of climate change believers trying to shut down the debate.
“In other words, ‘I am not even going to engage in a debate with you.’ It was ignorant, it was medieval, the approach of these true believers in climate change,” he said.