You mean there's a climate debate?

BBC science voices have much to learn

With weary inevitability, Nigel Lawson's brief appearance on the Today programme has caused an outpouring from the usual mangy pack of scientivists, activists, recidivists, and BBC TV presenters. First out of the blocks was physicist and BBC radio presenter Jim Al-Khalili, who had strong words to say on the subject...

For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you.

Ignorant and irresponsible! Golly. Obviously though, he was quite happy with Al Gore's appearance.

...if Al Gore is talking about his new film (not as a politician) then that's valid.

Ah, OK. Some politicians talking about climate good, other politicians talking about climate bad. Glad to be put straight on that.Al-Khalili went on to add that "...there should be NO debate any more about climate change", a position that was echoed by another physicist and (grossly overpaid) BBC TV presenter, Brian Cox:

Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science.

So it appears that two of Britain's leading "science voices" haven't heard that the science isn't settled at all. Do they not understand that a climate sensitivity of 1.5°C is a bit different to 4°C? Isn't that a meaningful debate? Perhaps they need to listen to Nigel Lawson on the subject a bit more. They might learn something.Another one of the BBC's regular "science voices" is Simon Singh, who - surprising though I am sure you will find it - was also in complete agreement with his colleagues that having Lawson appear was beyond the pale:

climate denier platform today = textbook false balance.

Singh and all these other BBC voices have clearly not heard that Lawson's views on the subject of global warming are entirely mainstream and therefore entirely fit for consumption by young and old alike. As Lawson put it some years ago:

While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, increasing concentrations of which may be expected to have (other things being equal) a warming effect, scientists disagree about how large that effect may be.

Not a very good "denier" then.Whenever someone who isn't on the bandwagon appears on the airwaves, or is given a few column inches in the press, the woolly green world explodes in a fit of outrage. This is now wholly predictable. The campaign to quash opposing voices in the mainstream media is now in full flow (witness the constant complaints to IPSO). If greens and scientivists had good arguments they would make their case and defend it against all comers. The fact that they don't tells a story.