Mark Lynas, or the Translation of the Militant Warmist
What had resident AGW alarmist, I mean “environmental correspondent” Mark Lynas to say when New Statesman dared provide space to the skeptical words of award-winning science journalist and writer David Whitehouse?
Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong [hopefully he managed to get his data right? or his surname]
you won’t, by definition, see climate change from one year to the next – or even necessarily from one decade to the next…Note, however, the general direction of the red line over this quarter-century period [translation: “if it goes down it’s too short a period. if it goes up, it’s the right time window to see climate change“]
Whitehouse, and his fellow contrarians, are going to have to do a lot better than this if they want to disprove (or even dispute) the accepted theory of greenhouse warming. [translation: “I am not going to listen to anybody thinking different than I do“]
Newspapers and magazines have a difficult job of trying, often with limited time and information, to sort out truth from fiction on a daily basis [translation: “if it’s contrary to what I believe, it’s fiction“]
I give contrarians, or sceptics, or deniers (call them what you will) short shrift [translation: “I have so much faith in global warming, I cannot tell the difference between a sceptic and a denier…let’s offend the whole lot…“]
as a close follower of the scientific debate on this subject I can state without doubt that there is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming [how can anybody seriously believe “manmade global warming” is the most solid area of Science in the history of humanity, it escapes me…]
Good journalism should never exclude legitimate voices from a debate of public interest, but it also needs to distinguish between carefully-checked fact and distorted misrepresentations in complex and divisive areas like this [translation: “I will decide what should and should not be debated“]
There definitely is one thing that distinguishes global warmers from sceptics. Sceptics do not get upset when something contrary to their belief is aired.