A split may be developing on the ‘warmist’ side, between what we might call the ‘extremists’ and the ‘moderates’. In many ways, the climate debate has hardly changed since I got interested in it about ten years ago. Public opinion wobbles up and down with hardly any real change. The same tired arguments and claims come round again: every climate conference is the last chance to save the planet; the Arctic ice is always about to vanish in one or two years, or ten years; climate scientists continue to be accused of selecting data sets to create hockey sticks and manipulating data; and teams of climate scientists keep producing reports saying almost exactly the same thing as the previous reports, which then get misrepresented and hyped by the media.
So when something does appear to change it’s worth taking note of. I have a feeling that a split may be developing on the ‘warmist’ side, between what we might call the ‘extremists’ and the ‘moderates’. Here are three recent examples of this. —Paul Matthews, Climate Scepticism, 13 August 2017
Regardless of your position on the issue of human induced global warming, one thing remains undeniable: Those who are apologists for the “save the planet” approach have done an abysmal job of graciously persuading the public to participate in the cause. —Robert E. Meyer, The Post-Crescent, 13 August 2017
Al Gore was skewered by a BBC radio host for his doomsday rhetoric on climate change and the state of the planet. Justin Webb put it to the environmentalist and former US vice president that he was “joining the dots” and making claims that were “going further” than scientists would. —Chris Campbell, Daily Express, 11 August 2017
Lord Lawson has been strongly criticized for his attack on An Inconvenient Sequel, the latest scaremongering climate change film by Al Gore, but he is right to say our energy bills could be reduced if we cut out bogus green fuel taxes. —Tim Newark, Sunday Express, 12 August 2017
I received a puzzling email from a doctor last week. It was headed ‘Climate Change’ and warned: ‘Your paps needs a dementia screening soon.’ Because of climate change? Not exactly. Juergen Messner — that was the sender’s name — was referring to an interview my father Nigel Lawson had just given to the BBC, in which he said there had been no increase in ‘extreme weather events’ and that we should stop panicking about climate change. —Daily Mail, 14 August 2017
Has anyone from the Warmist camp apologized for Big Al’s behavior? “He means well” ?
Willing suspension of disbelief has its limits.
How do they get him off the stage without losing the audience?
A split in the climate doom industry was inevitable . The half that relied on it to raise money for themselves need a new source of cash
as this campaign has run its course . The die hard group is just another religious group who will wither away little slower because they are emotionally attached to something that brings meaning to them . They will talk big but still consume fossil fuels like normal .
We are witnessing the final lap of one of the world’s largest con game . No politician will want to be anywhere near the global warming con game in a few years . Carbon taxes will be ditched or rebranded to something like infrastructure reserve .
I can still remember all this malarkey of a Dead Planet and according to the wackos back then everything would be gone the Rainforests the Birds and the Bees the world would be flooded like was shown in that putrid movie WATERWORLD and some craked urns claimed that it would no longer snow in england and the british Isles would be a series of tiny little islands the mississippi valley was going to be a vast waterway and The Platt River in Nebraska would have Dried Up by now well just acccording to the Eco-Nuts falling from the Green Nut Tree