Matt Ridley and James Delingpole are regulars in the Spectator and Telegraph since their capture by the extreme. They regularly mangle facts, cherry pick and mi

Matt Ridley and James Delingpole are regulars in the Spectator and Telegraph since their capture by the extreme. They regularly mangle facts, cherry pick and misquote to give highly misleading pieces. So much so they have become notorious for it. Nic Lewis, retired financier, physicist and mathematician, is not a climate scientist, despite his interest and Lawson thinktank funded paper. Calling himself an independent climate scientist doesn't make him one. Let't take a look. Here's a report when it was published[1]. Even one of the people Mr Lewis cites disputes his claims. The "good news" the IPCC apparently tried to hide is that the world's climate system is less sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than some scientists think it is. The bad news for the GWPF – a secretly funded organisation founded by UK climate science sceptic Lord Nigel Lawson - is that before the ink has even dried on their new report, the organisation has been accused of cherry-picking facts to make their argument stick. And in more bad news, one of the researchers cited by the GWPF report has told me that even if Lawson's think tank is right, then we're heading for 3C of global heating by the end of the century (which is actually very bad news). Good prose does not make a good scientific or factual argument. It is as you say, just "good talks", or hot air. Lawson was so bad at denial that his appearances on the BBC were more a black comedy five minutes than actual contrarianism. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/06/lord-lawson-climate-sceptic-thinktank https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/0...