Mark Lynas describes himself as a freelance writer working full-time on climate change. A fairer description would be an unthinking believer in AGW who gets more column inches published in mainstream media than scientists and ordinary people who question the theory of AGW. For someone who is working full time on climate change Lynas displays a breathtaking lack of understanding of AGW scepticism. Writing in the Guardian today Lynas articulates the new angle being taken by the man made global warming advocates by saying ‘True climate sceptics must stop the war on science’.
This suggests that sceptics are fighting science, which is wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin a rebuttal. The strapline of Lynas’ article reads: ‘David Davis and fellow honourable sceptics of climate change should distance themselves from the extremists and put forward their own proposals for mitigation’. Herein lays the problem. But we’ll come back to that in a moment. The Lynas piece follows the well worn path of playing the man instead of the ball and advancing the usual tissue of assertions impervious to all the evidence:
Contrary to popular assumptions, most climate scientists are sceptics. Not about the basic physical principles of greenhouse gases, obviously – which are undeniable to everyone except the aforementioned trolls and Delingpoles – but certainly about almost everything else.
Unable to defeat the arguments of the sceptics, Lynas is now trying to redefine what a sceptic is in order to build a strawman that he can pull apart later. It’s pretty desperate stuff. He also does all he can to undermine the numerous individual bloggers who have exposed fundamental flaws in any number of AGW assertions when he offers up this little gem, that neatly rewrites history and airbrushes facts in a manner of which Stalin would be proud:
Only this week, a paper on sea level rise was embarrassingly retracted from the journal Nature Geoscience thanks to flaws uncovered after rigorous fact-checking not by ignorant Telegraph bloggers but by diligent fellow climate scientists. Note also that the Himalayan glacier error was sparked not, once again, by the denial lobby, but by glaciologists who knew from their own research that the disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was virtually impossible.
He then takes off on a literary ramble which finally ends with him couching the whole warmist v sceptic debate in terms of the political left v the political right. Very original. the way his concludes his piece takes us back to the ‘problem’ I mentioned earlier, which becomes all too apparent as you read on:
Here’s my suggestion: true sceptics on the right should convene a process, perhaps in collaboration with free-market thinktanks such as the Adam Smith Institute, to formulate carbon mitigation proposals of their own. A war against science can never succeed. Shooting the messenger is just dumb. If you don’t like the solutions the greens have come up with, try proposing some of your own.
Mark Lynas shows in that one paragraph that he doesn’t get it. Like his fellow warmist drones, he spends too much time pontificating and not enough time listening. The whole basis of AGW scepticism is that there is no evidence that man’s emissions of Co2 are causing the planet to warm. So why focus on CO2 reduction? Why spend an astronomic sum of money in an effort to be carbon neutral when it is only guesswork that has people thinking CO2 is harmful to the planet? This is not a war against science. As the Wall Street Journal explained, sceptics ‘don’t doubt science – they doubt unscientific claims cloaked in the authority of science’. That is something Lynas would prefer his readers not to understand. As EU Referendum points out, this shows the warmists are wedded to their lies.
There is a sense of alternative reality when it comes to the likes of Lynas. What on earth is the point of asking a sceptic to devise a solution to something when there is no evidence it’s a problem? It is nonsensical. It is like a sceptic saying they do not believe hitting their knee with a hammer will cure a sore throat because there’s no evidence the sore throat is caused by their knee, and the warmist responding by saying the true sceptic would therefore hit their knee with something else instead.
The idiocy of Mark Lynas’ thinking underlines the intransigent position adopted by global warming campaigners. Unless they have a bogeyman to attack that enables them to demonstrate their virtue, they are lost. Now the green lobby has got its teeth into the politics of CO2 it won’t let go, even though deforestation and pollution of land, rivers and seas represent a genuine threat to the environment. They are only interested in posturing, the political fight and feeling superior, not protecting the planet.