On Thursday, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, compared climate sceptics to advocates of Islamic terror. Neither, she said, should have access to the media.
Actually, what she probably meant were "climate change" sceptocs.
And the link to the follow up article is:
Do also follow the link to
Corus, please have your coffee first.
I appreciate your comment that this author and the newspaper are not ones you would trust, though otherswill trust him more than, say, the National Enquirer, and that is indeed the problem we face with all reports both pro and con; that the author introduces bias and may be selective in what the report and how they interpret it. That applies to both sides of the argument.
Since we, and the public in general, are not climatologists, it is obviously important that we are able to "trust" the experts (just as many have to trust engineers).
Comments such as Margaret Beckett's are precisely what we don't want. What we do want to see is each argument resolved based on the science and data not emotion and guesswork.
Please post links to any adverse comments on these articles. Let us assess each post as to the science Vs Rhetoric and emotion and try and find where the truth might lie. In the original Christopher Monkton article he linked to his "Calculations". I thought that he did well in presenting evidence and largely avoided the emotiovie rehtoric.
He may well have been selective in the evidence he produced and in the sources he quoted but the only way we will know that is to see the response of the opposing lobby.
JMW
