Amid the disgust at the BBC’s “from now on we will only cover the views of the experts because their view in unequivocally correct cannot be denied and Saddam did have WMD anyway … it’s just that everyone stopped looking” … amid the stupid hypocrisy of the BBC and the stifling rise of pro-warmist stories in the news.
I missed the fact that global warming stories (both pro and anti) may well have fallen to an all time low. Or at least google news count is(?) at an all time low (which now I think about it may mean that Google in it’s desire to spread the truth have decided that anti-global warming news isn’t “news”?)
Still global warming hits are 5650, “peak oil” hits are still lower at 3340 but “aliens” is at 5,680. Now that is certainly down from the 7000s of a few weeks ago, and being the “summer” in Scotland (it was 14C yesterday and doesn’t look better today), I suppose we are in the “silly season” and with parts of the US sweltering, there really ought to be a deluge of global warming column fillers.
But even though the numbers are down, the swing is decided “pro warmist”. These warmist are the “usual suspects”: a few highprofile US papers and the “barroom brawl” Aussies who wouldn’t know a scientific argument if it hit their brains somewhere between the legs.
So, whilst there has been a general trend toward disinterest, the trend is much greater amongst those covering anti-warming views. What to make of it? Well, whilst the zealot will always push to get their view heard, those with common sense don’t have the same overwhelming drive to have their views heard unless they feel the zealots are being taken seriously. When people stop giving any credibility to the zealots, when there is nothing credible to argue against … what is the point in wasting effort arguing against them?