Some thoughts on the evolving “consensus” on climate science:
…there never has been a “crunch point” forcing journalists to re-examine the issue. Instead they have just kept the same ridiculous views for over a decade even though no sane journalist coming to the subject of “global warming” after 18 years of pause, complete failure of climate models, global ice back at normal levels, no increase in climate extremes, a decrease in hurricanes and children still knowing what snow is … no journalist would swallow this non-science about doomsday warming in the face of NO EVIDENCE to support it. (Rookies might be more sceptical, but they probably quickly get indoctrinated into the journalists alarmists views)
They don’t ever look at global warming afresh. They just keep believing the same non-science they have for over a decade despite the overwhelming evidence against their insane views.
The fever (to borrow a metaphor from the alarmist-in-chief) will have to break at some point.
[Update a while later]
Naomi Klein showcases everything that is wrong with climate alarmism.
If you want to boil a journalist, you could do it the old school way and go all Midieval on them.
Clearly more forceful measures are required to suppress the denier clique. As National Geographic points out in its latest issue you’re also creationists and moon-landing deniers. Maybe you should be loaned out to North Korea – correction through hard labor.
Iran likely also needs bodies that can handle highly radioactive materials without any moral compunctions.
😉
“and moon-landing deniers”
Seems you would find more of those in the AGW crowd.
I went to the beach last month. It was still there.
Well mine’s been just about washed away from those winter storms.