Notwithstanding this lack of knowledge and the Climategate scandal, which showed that AGW adherents have been actively preventing sceptical scientists from having their work published, the Times is still convinced by 'the science'. They don't bother to explain why, probably because they don't really understand, but they do point out that the IPCC, every major government and The Times are all in agreement. Well, that's okay then.
They then make the usual and specious claim that there is a formidable array (a majority they allege) of leading scientists who back their side of the argument, ignoring the fact that Climategate has shown that one side of the argument has been caught out colluding to prevent the other side from being heard.
But in fact there are plenty of leading scientists who disagree. Hundreds in fact. Proper PHDs and professors - the lot. They've signed declarations to that effect. It's just that environment correspondents never bother speaking to them, presumably having been asleep the day that they were being taught journalism.
But anyway, as we keep having to point out, consensus is not science. Science is about evidence and the evidence for AGW does not stack up. At the beginning of the 20th century there was a consensus that Newtonian physics was the final and definitive word on the subject. Then along came a man called Einstein. Just last week we learnt about Rom Houben, a man who was in a coma for 23 years but who was conscious the whole time. Several experts agreed, one might even call it a consensus, that he was brain dead, a vegetable. They wanted to stop feeding him. It was a consensus until one expert agreed to take another look.
The main stream media are still dragging their feet on this issue, still buying the propaganda of the Green Meanies and even, in the case of The Independent this week and in the wake of the turmoil in Australia, trying to create divisions within the Conservative Party because one or two MPs have dared to speak out and question the consensus. The great hot air festival in Copenhagen will most likely be an expensive waste of time which will come to no agreement. But, as has been revealed these last couple of weeks, albeit grudgingly in some sections of the media, we cannot be sure that the science is saying what we have been told it is saying. Before we saddle ourselves with mind boggling costs, shouldn't we be certain we know what we are doing and what we are trying to achieve?