Is Anyone Capable Of Bursting The Climate Emergency Bubble?
For Starters, Let’s Demand Balance, With Warmist’s Views Challenged.
“Greta Thunberg is a world historic figure on a level with Martin Luther King and Gandhi”
If That Quote Doesn’t Fire Up Your Inner Iconoclast, It’s Dead And Gone.
The dumbest quote in the history of the world, from a green fascist trying to impose his ridiculous political views on the rest of us, inspires me to return to the subject of global warming, as the left declares a “climate emergency” and tries to make us conform to its ruinously dumb ideas.
“Greta Thunberg is a world historic figure on a level with Martin Luther King and Gandhi,” said Extinction Rebellion’s Rupert Read, in an interview with the Sunday Times.
Bear in mind she is a school child now of 16, and can’t/doesn’t know very much about the science of climate change. That didn’t stop politicians like Michael Gove going to hear her speak, and grandstanding their humbleness by carefully taking notes of exactly what she said.
So I renew my plea for balanced reporting by the mainstream media, and an end to its arrogant censorship of news which it feels shouldn’t be released to the public. This is a decision for readers, not journalists.
What is so worrying about the global warming panic is how dodgy science can be polished into appearing unblemished, if we let the corrupt media like the BBC decide who can be listened too and who can’t. Let me describe my introduction to the subject, because I think you’ll agree it is instructive and scary.
After I took up the Science and Technology beat at Reuters in the 90s, I quickly turned to global warming as perhaps the most important story I would cover. I was braced for the worst. Here in Britain, the BBC was already talking about an existential crisis; the mainstream media too.
Completely different story
Imagine my amazement when, with the top flight access Reuters gave me to the best scientists in the world, I found a completely different story. Nobody would say there was a direct link between CO2 and global warming. The most radical views were that possibly there might be a link. I reported that in a balanced way many times.
Since then, we have had many computer predictions of disaster, but these are all man-made constructs with questions about the veracity of inputs selected by some scientists (ClimateGate, HockeyStick) with less than reliable reputations. Then came the charlatan’s charlatan, Al Gore, with his much derided (by those willing to peer behind the groupthink slogans and check the facts) “An Inconvenient Truth”. Currently we have feeble minded hand-wringers like Prince Charles telling us the end is nigh. Recently we’ve had the ludicrous spectacle of Greta Thunberg, who clearly knows little about the science of climate change, being treated as some kind of prophet.
And still the media accepts a controversial one-sided scenario which threatens to torpedo our current lifestyle, and condemn the 3rd world, denied cheap fossil fuel, to a return to humiliating poverty after the brief promise of relief. Still the BBC’s climate “analyst” Roger Harrabin sets the tone here by offending every journalistic ethic by consistently reporting just one side of the story. He must know there is a huge resource of top scientists out there saying, of course the climate is warming, it has been since the ice age ended 10,000 years ago. But how much of this is now down to human activity? Can manmade CO2, which accounts for about 4% of annual CO2 production, be warming the climate? There are some highly qualified scientists who say having more CO2 around is a benefit in the greening of the planet, not a problem. Many reputable scientists say earth’s interaction with the sun accounts for changes in climate.
No more censorship please
So I repeat my plea. It’s no good saying you’ve read the research, if you wilfully ignore much highly qualified opinion that disagrees with you because wicked politicians try to blacken their characters. Journalists must give time to opposing views, particularly as the current performance is propelling us towards acts of self harm, destroying our civilisation and returning us to the caves. And probably have no impact on the climate.
The question is – not who is right or wrong, but that the media balances stories and doesn’t take sides. That’s why we’re in a political mess with hysteria about an unproven “climate emergency”. It’s sad that many reporters in the mainstream media embrace a conventional wisdom on human climate influence that if they bothered to do any research at all, would see was seriously challenged by many highly qualified climate scientists and academics.
There’s a huge number of top climate scientist doubters – Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen to name but two – and maybe thousands around the world that you can find on www.sepp.org. Many testified at Congressional hearings. Aren’t these warmist journalists even slightly curious about the “97% of scientists agree” canard, the ClimateGate corruption of data, the hockey-stick scandal?
It was as warm in northern Europe in Roman times and again in medieval ones as it is today, without much human generated CO2 around. I’m not saying these critics are right, just that they deserve to be heard, and the public allowed a real informed debate. I find it outrageous that so many of my colleagues go meekly and lazily along with this move to hoodwink the public, even as arrogant warmists try to shut down debate with personal insults like “denier”. My plea is for balance and openness, and to remind colleagues that it is our job to represent those with minority, unpopular views. Remember Galileo. And the great Christopher Booker, RIP.
18 months? 35 years? No, 4-1/2 billion years
The Heartland Institute organised a conference on climate change in Washington on July 25, which the BBC of course called deniers. At least it sent over a reporter, but instead of asking them about their view of the science, it became a “why are you a denier” routine.
At the conference Representative Tom McClintock of California noted claims by Prince Charles, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others that we have 18 months to 35 years until catastrophic events occur, and said this, according to SEPP.
“I suppose I have as much authority as either of them to make predictions so I’ll give us another four and a half billion years, which is the amount of time the climate’s already been changing on the planet,’ McClintock said.