Imagine my amazement when I started talking to the world’s top climate scientists and found a completely different story. The science wasn’t even close to being proven, and I had great difficulty finding anyone to say the link between excessive human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and a changing climate was clear. There were many assumptions, but no proof. Yet the BBC and the mainstream media (MSM) constantly reported a proven doom scenario.
But complying with Reuters standards of balance and fairness, I produced many stories summing up the fact that nobody really knew –
a) did CO2 impact climate?
b) if so, how much was down to human influence?
I still don’t understand why the BBC was (and is) adamant the science was settled, or why the Main Stream Media (with some honourable exceptions) went along with it. I’m sure it was more laziness than any kind of conspiracy.
Since the mid-90s, climate science hasn’t progressed much, but now the politicians are relying on computer modelling for the ever more hysterical climate predictions and panicky plans. These models are notorious for predicting unreliable scenarios, not least because they are loaded with assumptions that are often highly speculative and politically motivated.