Geoff Chambers has left this typically thoughtful and provocative comment on the Has the BBC’s review of science reporting been cancelled? thread:
Everyone commenting here has formed his opinion on climate change by looking at both sides of the argument. If you or I want to find out about a subject, we borrow a book from the library, or go on the net. Not so the BBC chiefs, newspaper editors, MPs, and other opinion leaders. They are highly intelligent, sure of their judgement, but very busy. On a subject outside their own field, they ask the opinion of people like themselves with the requisite expertise. Are the papers Phil Jones recommends the right ones to look at in order to judge the quality of his work? Ask Sir Martin Rees [President of the Royal Society]. Is the science journalism of the BBC above reproach? Ask a journalist-scientist on the Telegraph.
Look at your letter from their point of view. Just a “boring obsessive rant” (Professor Steve Jones’ characterisation in the Telegraph) from the green ink brigade. One of them wrote a book? All nutters write books. Possibly someone at the BBC will get one of their underlings to read it, or browse through the Harmless Sky and Bishop Hill blogs for half an hour (the time that the officials at UEA spent browsing through Climate Audit, according to Phil Jones).
Are we winning the argument? Well, yes, in some Platonic universe where only ideas have reality. In the real world, the argument hasn’t begun, and the BBC, like the rest of the media, has little interest in seeing it begin. This is not a conspiracy, simply the way society conducts discussion. Without the adversarial context and equality of evidence provided by an election or a court of law, it may never begin.
The crux of Geoff’s argument is in the last paragraph when he says, ‘This is not a conspiracy, simply the way society conducts discussion’, and I would take issue with his conclusion.
The BBC is not ‘society’ but it is, and has been for over half a century, a pillar of the British establishment. It’s role as an opinion former as well as a source of information has long been recognised, and to some extent it has become the barometer of public opinion too. But a barometer that at times measures conditions that it has played a part in creating.
That is why, in theory at least, the way in which it conveys factual output is so strictly controlled by legislation. These controls were put in place because of the obvious risk that the influence of the BBC – and make no mistake, Auntie is still tremendously influential – could be hijacked for political purposes; particularly by an entrenched government.
I have no opinion about the way ‘society conducts discussion’, but over the last few years I have had a very bleak insight into how a beleaguered establishment conducts discussion. One of the main tools in this process has been the supposedly independent and transparent inquiry; or ‘review’ if you are trying not to raise people’s expectations. Perhaps it started with the Franks Inquiry into the Falklands War, which now seems to be generally discredited. It certainly applied to consideration of the disastrous management of the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic, with Tony Blair announcing no less than four inquiries simultaneously, in the certainty that any inconvenient issues would drop through the gaps between their terms of reference.
Most conspicuous in recent years has been the succession of inquiries focused on the Iraq War, which seem to have come to conclusions that are not well supported by the evidence. There is no need to add any comments here about the three UK based inquiries into Climategate other than to say that in each case one side of the argument received a far better hearing than the other, in spite of the inquires having been made necessary by the actions and arguments of the critics who were relegated to a minor role. Andrew Montford and Steve McIntyre, among others, have made the failure of the inquiry panels to establish the true extent of the allegations against the climate community, and the evidence supporting it, figure in their deliberations.
John Mortimer, in his guise as a barrister, and the son of a barrister, once said in an interview that a piece of advice from his father had stood him in very good stead when he was practising law rather than writing novels. ‘Never ask a witness a question”, the old man said, “unless you are quite sure that you know what the answer is”. In the case of the Russell and Oxburgh inquiries, great care seems to have been taken to make sure that those who had made allegations against the CRU and the IPCC process were not asked any questions at all, possibly for the same reason. The BBC seem determined to give Andrew Montford and I the same treatment.
In conducting it’s review of science reporting, the BBC may seek to consult those who will provide palatable responses, and exclude those who may require them to confront problems that they would prefer not to think about. If this is their intention, and even in the face of all the present evidence I very much hope that it is not, then that will not be the end of the story. As we explained in our letter, both Andrew Montford and I have acquired considerable archives on the BBC’s reporting of climate change. Some of this is already in the public domain, but there is a great deal that is not but is likely to become relevant when their report is published.
Geoff’s other point is that the establishment are very much inclined to seek advice from other members of the establishment, and I am sure that he is right about this too. Informing yourself by those means must be tremendously reassuring, but it is no way to conduct an inquiry if your intention is actually to find out what is happening. Membership of the establishment does imply a certain mindset, and a reluctance to rock other people’s boats.
This point is well illustrated by the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Taking over a decade to complete, and costing tens of millions, this was conducted within the context of a judicial process and finally dug down to truths that seem to have satisfied everyone. In other circumstances these would probably have been passed over. This was an exercise that took place beyond the reach of the establishment, unlike the Iraq War, foot and mouth disease, and Climategate inquiries. No one seems to be impugning the credibility of the findings.
Going back to the BBC’s review of science reporting, I have little doubt that the mandarins of the BBC Trust see Andrew Montford and the proprietor of this blog in precisely the unflattering way that Geoff suggests. But as he makes clear, there is a commonality with the attitude of Phil Jones and his colleague’s to climate sceptics. I actually posted about the dangers of the BBC not learning from the CRU’s mistakes some time ago here: Is this the BBC’s Climategate?. Dismissing the views of bloggers out of hand may be tempting, but it is not wise unless you first make quite sure that they do not have a valid point of view.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, Sir Muir Russell, and Lord Oxburgh seem to have taken the same line on dealing with climate sceptics as the CRU, and as a result their inquiries have failed in their objectives; to draw a line under the Climategate scandal. But in the case of the Russell Report there is at least one section that rings true.
At the end of Chapter 5 of the Russell Report , the authors acceptthe tge that the blogoshere is here to stay, that it is now influential in forming opinion, and that those for whom this is inconvenient must adjust to living with the new dispensation. Not even Sir Muir Russell can get everything wrong all the time, and a similar message comes from the Royal Society, via the BBC’s very own Roger Harrabin, when reporting on dissent among the Fellows about the Society’s published position on climate change:
… it seems that message has not seeped through to all quarters. And one Fellow of the Royal Society said there’s the whiff of “end of empire” in the air as establishments strive to protect their authority as it ebbs away into the blogosphere
The BBC would seem to have some catching up to do, but in fact they were discussing very much the same problem back in 2007.
At that time the BBC Trust published its blockbuster report on impartiality, From Seasaw to Wagon Wheel. In spite of the extraordinary choice of title, this shows every sign of being a conscientious attempt to address an undoubtedly complex and difficult subject fearlessly, despite the need to rake over some severe criticisms and unpalatable evidence. The following is taken from the penultimate chapter:
GUIDING PRINCIPLE ELEVEN
Impartiality is a process, about which the BBC should be honest and transparent with its audience: this should permit greater boldness in its programming decisions. But impartiality can never be fully achieved to everyone’s satisfaction: the BBC should not be defensive about this but ready to acknowledge and correct significant breaches as and when they occur.
When it was made clear that the impartiality seminar held in London last September was going to be streamed live on the Governors’ website, there was a certain amount of sucking of teeth – and not just from within the BBC. Did we really expect top executives and broadcasters to wrestle with real dilemmas […..] The seminar was criticised afterwards by one or two members of the then Board of Management for, in effect, washing the BBC’s dirty linen in public. One said it had been ‘extremely damaging’ to the BBC.
That is very much ‘old thinking’. It is true that impartiality always used to be discussed behind closed doors at Broadcasting House and Television Centre […..] The reality is that you can’t close the doors any more.
Information has proliferated so fast in our broadband culture that audiences know almost as much about the decision-making process as the broadcasters. […..]
In the past, many editorial decisions could be taken in the comfort of knowing that audiences could judge programmes only by what they had heard or seen on air. […..] So paternalism will no longer wash: broadcasters have to be ready to explain their decisions. And trust works both ways: if the BBC expects to retain the audience’s trust, it must also trust the audience by ‘letting daylight in on magic’.
A lot of this debate is actually about the role of the institution – a fear that maybe the BBC won’t be infallible and that we’ll show our fallibility. I think that if we had more courage about being transparent in the decision-making process, inviting the audience into the debate, a lot of these ills would be cured. David Schlesinger, Reuters
Impartiality itself is a process. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but the search never ends. […..] It should always be ready to share its decision-making with the audience: this should be part of its contract with the licence-payer. If it tries to close the doors, the information will leak out sooner or later, and the BBC will end up looking defensive or worse. But if it keeps the doors open, it will help the audience to understand how impartiality works, and trust will grow. […..] The greater prize is the maintenance of the audience’s trust.
That trust is the BBC’s most precious resource. While it remains publicly owned and funded, it is essential. Whatever slings and arrows of outrageous fortune have winged their way to the BBC, the basic level of trust has endured. That should give the BBC courage not to be defensive about every hostile headline in the press – but also to be ready to acknowledge and correct breaches of impartiality whenever they arise, as they undoubtedly will. [……]
Impartiality in today’s world must be a transparent process. […..]
I have edited these extracts heavily to save space, and I strongly recommend reading the original in full. The message is inescapable: if the BBC is to keep its reputation in the digital age, then the old, tried, and tested ways of the establishment must be abandoned. There are no doors to close on private assessments of matters that are of public interest.
It is also worth glancing at the Forward on page 2, in which Professor RIchard Tait endorses the report on behalf of the BBC Trustees. I wonder if he remembers what it says now?
There should be no impartiality between right and wrong, or correct and incorrect!
Fiona Fox’s words on BBC Newswatch (23/04/2010)
(Fiona Fox – Science and Media Centre) and she was doing a review of bias in science reporting for the Science Minister!!!!
“Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact on Climate change there has been a real change..
People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally (at the BBC) to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story.”
“to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about ‘climate science'” – Fiona Fox
I wonder if Richar Black and Roger Harrabin are embarrased by, appeciate, or just wish she had not said the following.
And the BBC wonders why we don’t think they are impartial. I hope that the BBC would disasociate themselves from this.
PeterM
In democratic societies there must be impartiality in deciding between what is right and wrong or correct and incorrect.
Only in totalitarian societies can this be dictated.
I hope we agree on this.
Max
Here’s what Wiki tells us about Fiona Fox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Fox_(UK_press_officer)
Sounds like an impartial, open-minded individual, the perfect choice for “doing a review of bias in science reporting”, with no political “axe to grind”. Right?
Max
I remember Fiona Fox at the Guardian debate last month – as far as I can tell, she is against sceptics being given equal airtime with AGW proponents and also, in her words, “bombarding respected researchers with FOIs” (see here) – her position appears to be that climate scientists should be given an “amnesty” to express the uncertainties in climate science, and presumably should be trusted to do so on the BBC, for instance, without being asked too many uncomfortable questions from sceptics (I get the impression that for her, sceptics and scientists are different creatures.) To be fair, she has criticised the media for “alarmist coverage of climate change”, as per her blog here (although she also has a go at the traditional media for over-hyping ClimateGate – which they emphatically were not. They were very slow to respond – last winter the bloggers left the traditional media in the dust. And she has a rather amusing and dismissive view about blogs, as shown here.)
Now this will become, I feel, a bit of a cleft stick for the BBC, and for the media, generally. Even if they find ways of not giving equal airtime to dissenting voices, or providing the adversarial context, to use Geoff’s words, as they struggle to provide a semblance of impartiality, they will surely find it very difficult to return to the days of “worse than we thought”, the ice-free Arctics and metres of sea-level rise just around the corner. With more openness, there will be more caveats and expressions of uncertainty, lots more maybes, and coulds and mights. The impression this will tend to give is that of just another scare story that has run its course. As the Royal Society fellow put it, there is a bit of an “end of empire” whiff to it all; will the climate change phenomenon end, finally, not with a bang but a long drawn-out whimper?
Max,
Re your #3. I’m afraid we can’t agree on that!
We can agree, that democracy is the best method method of deciding on social issues. Taxation, education, defence and so o. Yes, of course, bodies like the BBC should present both sides of the political debate equally and treat each side impartially. I’d go further and extend that principle to other TV channels and newspapers too.
However, science is not a social issue, although it does have social consequences. Leave aside the AGW issue for the sake of clarity. There can’t be a political debate on whether the Earth is round, or whether AIDS is caused by the HIV vaccine, or whether homeopathy is a valid branch of medicine, or whether Darwin’s theory of Evolution is valid.
There can be scientific discussion and even debate but that’s different. The outcome can’t be decided on a show of hands or the result of a secret ballot.
I meant whether AIDS is caused by the HIV virus not vaccine!
However I’m sure that when, or if, a vaccine is developed there will be some group who will claim, with no scientific evidence whatever, that the vaccine will be responsible for something much worse than AIDs.
Maybe they will be given time on the BBC too?
It’s not a question of imposing equal time for opposing points of view, but of applying the same criteria of newsworthiness to climate science which are applied in other areas. Durkin did this in his ‘Swindle’ film, not by presenting a balanced picture, but by saying “Not everyone agrees with the consensus; there’s a story here”. It’s a classic example of the dictum that “’Man bites dog’ is news”.
Here are some of the headlines we haven’t seen: “retired mining engineer provokes senate hearings” “Guardian forced to invite him to debate after readers pay his air fare” “ads forced off air by blog campaign” “Minister leans on Science Museum to produce political propaganda” “top climate scientist admits no significant warming in 15 years” “retired British stockbroker accuses scientists of fraud”.
To understand why we haven’t seen them, read the transcript of a 2005 BBC discussion recently resurrected by Bishop Hill here
http://www.newsxchange.org/newsx2005/what_wrong_03_05.html
Behind their supposedly sophisticated arguments, these are opinion leaders pretending to be journalists. Their recurrent theme is “Men don’t bite dogs. It’s our responsibility to quash these rumours”.
Geoff, that’s brilliant; you’ve summed up the situation precisely.
PeterM
Two separate issues:
You write:
That is correct. “Scientific truth” can also not be determined by a “mainstream majority” of “2,500 scientists” or by a nod of confidence from the leadership of several august scientific organizations, but instead by observed empirical data.
But we are talking about the BBC’s need for “impartiality” in reporting the news, not about “scientific truth”.
I believe you should read geoffchambers #8 though a couple of times for a very succinct summary of what is meant here.
Max
geoffchambers
You just wrote:
Well, it’s not exactly that headline, but the Swiss weekly review “Die Weltwoche” (22 July 2010) published an interview with the “retired mining engineer” (McIntyre) entitled “The Reports Are Lousy” (referring to the reports of the Climategate investigations by Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh).
McIntyre points out that these investigations were not “independent” and that the reports were essentially “whitewashes”, which did not investigate whether or not the scientific data itself had been manipulated and was questionable, but simply investigated certain aspects of the behavior of the scientists.
Russell himself was not even present at a large part of the hearings.
To the question:
McIntyre’s reply:
To the question:
McIntyre replied:
[These are all my translations from the German text (which was most likely translated from an original English language interview, to which I have no access).]
The interview also briefly discusses the discredited Mann hockey stick and McIntyre’s role in refuting it as a statistical fraud.
At the end of the interview McIntyre is asked:
His reply:
The MSM may not have blared the headlines, but here is a MSM article that is very critical of the Climategate whitewash attempts.
Max
geoffchambers
I found it!
Here is the link to the English-language interview of Steve McIntyre by Alex Reichmuth (which was published in German in “Die Weltwoche” in Switzerland).
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1294-the-inquiry-reports-are-lousy-an-interview-with-steve-mcintyre.html
My “translation of the translation” wasn’t too far off…
Max
geoffchambers
A minor detail.
I just noticed that the English-language text of the Steve McIntyre interview by Alex Reichmuth from “Die Weltwoche” are not Reichmuth’s original English-language notes of the interview (which are nowhere to be found), but a translation of the published article from German to English by a Philipp Mueller.
The translator took a few minor liberties, but the gist is there.
Max
Thanks Alex and Max. At least the Swiss will know what few in Britain can know; that the British establishment and press will do anything to protect the theory of global warming, even if they expose themselves to international ridicule in the process.
TonyN
You take issue with my suggestion that the lack of interest shown by the media in the sceptical viewpoint was normal – “the way society conducts discussion”.
I probably expressed myself badly there.
I agree with your jaundiced view of public enquiries. In the case of the Falklands and the Iraq wars, and the original Bloody Sunday inquiry, one can understand (cynically) the need for whitewash, since these events had a profound effect, not only on the political careers of those concerned, but also on the national psychology (if that’s not putting it too pompously). Nothing of the kind was at risk over Climategate, so why the closing of ranks?
My pessimism arises from the fear that, the more successfully you and Montford and McIntyre comb over the details of the inquiries, the coverups, and the media bias, the more open you are to the accusation of being “obsessive bores”. All you can do in these circumstances is argue your case as calmly, rationally and patiently as possible, and hope someone in authority is listening (or is allowed to listen by the gatekeepers and minders surrounding them).
I remember the BBC’s heartsearching over the question of sex and vulgarity decades ago. The protest movement was led by the very popular Mary Whitehouse and her National Viewers and Listeners Association. Despite the fact that they were 50,000 strong, the BBC refused to engage with them, on the grounds that the Association wasn’t properly constituted, with elected officers and so on, but was basically a Whitehouse fanclub. The refusal was logical, but seemed to many nitpicking and cowardly.
In the case of climate scepticism, it is difficult to see what kind of body could claim authority to speak for the “opposing viewpoint”. The Global Warming Policy Foundation clearly derives authority from the parliamentarians on board, though it would be nice to have some elected MPs. You and Montford, plus Maurizio and the Climate Resistance gang could clearly knock spots off the native warmists in a debate. But who do you represent, apart from us, your fans?
Geoffchambers,
“applying the same criteria of newsworthiness to climate science which are applied in other areas”
Like astronomy? You’d get maybe half an hour very late at night long after most sensible people are in bed!
Are the efforts of several hundred old denialist bloggers really newsworthy? You might need to change that. Do what you might have done in your younger days and organise a demo! You’ll need maybe 100,000 marchers. Maybe the Daily Mail or Spectator will help you with the publicity.
You could work on a few chants. Like:
“Hey hey ho ho! carbon taxes will have to go!”
It’ll also help to get one or two guys beaten up by the cops, preferably on video camera. Thee BBC won’t be able to ignore you then!
tempterrain #15 asks:
“Are the efforts of several hundred old denialist bloggers really newsworthy?” Exactly my point. There is nothing in the unwritten rules of journalism which says that journalists should pay attention to bloggers. What the rules do say is that they should follow the story which challenges the conventional view. The examples I cited have all the ingredients which make a “good” story: amateurs showing up the pros (scientists and journalists); experts wrong; official coverup, etc. Yet most journalists won’t touch it, possibly for fear of being labelled as denialists, Big Oil shills, etc.
You suggest we need to take to the streets and provoke some police violence in order to gain publicity – a joke in poor taste, given that someone died last year on an anti-global warming demo in London. Monbiot, to his credit, raised the possibility of police culpability before the evidence was in. As an investigative journalist, he has a natural in-built suspicion of the official version of events. Except when the official version comes from a climate scientist, or an academic spokesman for climate science, or a politician defending climate science. No wonder politicians like climate science. It affords them the protection from criticism which a mediaeval monarch got by taking refuge in the cathedral.
Max #11
The German language press seems far better than ours at giving space to unconventional ideas. Der Spiegel did a decent article on global warming recently, and I’ve seen favourable articles (in, I think, die Welt) on Gunnar Heinsohn, who has interestingly eccentric ideas on the influence of past climate catastrophes on the human psyche. (Alex: he out-Velikovskys Velikovsky).
Since the Green Party has been a force in German politics for decades, there’s presumably not the woolly all-party consensus around environmentalism that one finds in Britain.
In Germany, as in Britain, (but not France or Italy or the USA) I believe a large proportion of the population reads a “serious” newspaper. This should make for a more informed, open-minded debate on serious questions. I’m not sure that is still the case in Britain. Which is why we’re chatting here, I suppose.
Geoffchambers,
I think the guy who was killed was at a G20 demo, except from what I read, he wasn’t actually a demonstrator but rather on his way home from work and came across the police lines by accident.
Probably, he had the naive idea that if he explained who he was and what he was doing the police would let him through. Instead, he was clubbed with a police baton, but even though it was all on video no charges were brought. So, yes, I think we, at least George Mobiot and I, know that the State can cover up the truth in its own interests. We are suspicious of official versions of events when the police, the Army, or the security services are involved.
But, you can’t compare the AGW issue to State cover ups over Vietnam, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan etc. Science is different. Science, generally speaking, doesn’t have that culture of secrecy. You might think more data should have been handed over, more quickly, but the truth you guys are considered to be a pain in the neck! If Climate scientists were genuinely secretive they wouldn’t have allowed their emails to be hacked. You’d have to think that scientists worldwide were co-opted in some secret multinational plot to draw the same parallel. If you knew any scientists, you’d know this was just impossible.
tempterrain #18
Let’s try to avoid repeating every single argument on every single thread. On official cover ups: TonyN, Andrew Montford and Steve McIntyre have demonstrated quite clearly that of the three inquiries into CRU, the parliamentary one was slipshod, and the other two were blatant coverups – more blatant than usual because the establishment knew that the press wouldn’t do their job by examining them too closely.
You say: “Science is different. Science, generally speaking, doesn’t have that culture of secrecy”. Precisely. Which is why, when Monbiot saw the emails suggesting destroying data and blocking FOI requests, he said “what the CRU is doing is not science”. So why has he backtracked? It’s why Humphrys on the BBC’s Today programme said “the university’s Climatic Research Unit had been distorting the debate about global warming”. Why has the BBC apologised? (see
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/8/bbc-apologises-to-cru.html )
Your suggestion that we must believe in some “secret multinational plot” was precisely the argument Monbiot used to wriggle out of following his own line of of reasoning to its logical conclusion, after calling for Jones’ resignation. (see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists )
There is no plot. Why do you have to believe that we believe there is?
PeterM
You wrote (18) to geoffchambers
geoff may wish to respond separately, but here are my comments to your statement.
“Science, generally speaking” probably does not have that culture of secrecy that has been exposed in “pro-AGW climate science” by Climategate. But then AGW is a multibillion dollar big business, with major political implications, so is not comparable with “science, generally speaking”.
The Climategate revelations have shown beyond question that the exposed “climate scientists were genuinely secretive”, and they certainly did not “allow their emails to be hacked” or released by an inside whistle-blower.
This “outside hacker” or inside whistle-blower” plus types like McIntyre and those of us whom you describe as “you guys” may, indeed, be (as you say) “considered to be a pain in the neck”.
It’s no fun to have someone looking over your shoulder to make sure you’re not cheating, and actually much less of a “pain in the neck” to just keep all the work secret away from outside auditors.
But that’s not how it works, especially with taxpayer funded research.
As far as a “secret multinational plot” (or AGW conspiracy) is concerned, Peter Taylor has described the phenomenon fairly succinctly in referring to it as a “collusion of interests” rather than a “conspiracy”.
With tens of billions of dollars being spent today to keep the “dangerous AGW” postulation alive, and hundreds of billions (if not trillions) at stake in future (direct or indirect) carbon taxes, it is no wonder that such powerful “collusions of interest” can form.
As far as “knowing any scientists” is concerned, I know quite a few (mostly chemists, physicists or biologists). I studied chemistry myself for 3 years before deciding to “get out of the lab” and switching to chemical engineering. Most of the scientists I know are not convinced that AGW is a serious threat.
And many are appalled by Climategate and all the other revelations of wrong-doing in the name of “science”.
Max
geoffchambers
Looks like your 19 and my 20, both to Peter crossed.
But it also looks like we are on the same wave length.
Max
Geoffchambers
You ask “Why do you have to believe that we believe there is [a plot]?” Because you’ve you’ve told us often enough!
As Max put it “Use your commonsense it’s all a hoax!”.
Collusion and planning are required for a hoax to work. That’s essentially a plot, isn’t it?
PeterM
Do not restart your silly habit of putting words into people’s mouths (22):
A “hoax” is defined as:
Under examples we read:
(Nowhere do we read about a “conspiracy”, Peter).
Read Peter Taylor’s book. He explains very well that a “conspiracy” (or “plot”) is not required here. We simply have a powerful “collusion of interests” at play, as he describes quite well.
Since English is presumably your native language, you should be able to draw this distinction quite easily. I can.
Max
PeterM
Future online dictionaries may tell us
Who knows?
Maybe there will be others that are even more astounding!
Max
Max,
You’re wriggling again!
You also said “Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar climate research scam”.
So they “are all in on” it the hoax or the scam. But they aren’t actually “plotting” ?
Well if you say so!