Climate change

The 97 per cent consensus among climate researchers factoid is used to close down argument. Just who is in this group of 97 per cent? Are they experienced climate scientists? I doubt it. There are many impressive climate scientists, led by MIT’s Lindzen, experts in the field who deal in proof, not some consensus led by politicians on the make. Are they only three per cent of climate scientists? Unlikely. And I hope that most scientific proof is based on more than a “strong likelihood” that stuff is true.

Warmists insist on action because they say excessive CO2 is heating the climate. But doesn’t it make you a bit suspicious when you consider the so-called “hockey-stick” controversy, which sought to cover up the inconvenient truth of a medieval period of soaring temperatures which happened without increased CO2? Doesn’t it seem weird that Greenland had a warmer climate a couple of thousand years ago that spurred agriculture, or that red wine growing flourished in England then, led by higher temperatures without the aid of industrialised amounts of CO2? And global temperatures fell between 1945 and 1975 as CO2 output soared. Could it be that the sun’s influence might be the most potent influence on our planet’s temperature?

The ClimateGate controversy, when the University of East Anglia was caught faking data, must have raised some doubts with you, surely. Not to mention the fact that all these predictions of doom seem to based, not on scientific evidence, but on dubious algorithm-driven models designed to fake the results.

And certain politicians clearly love the idea that we may be warming the world, because it justifies them ordering the rest of us about as they arrogantly pretend to know enough to change the climate. (No names, no pack drill).

This link between CO2 and climate change is far from established. News journalists should bear this in mind when reporting the story, and seek out opinion on both sides of the argument for balance and fairness to the reader. ■