Thank you Gentlemen for your support. I am afraid that this degree of "censorship" is now common, particularly on the MSM eg BBC. It is said that the "science is settled" in the editorial policy, as well as a requirement to say "due to climate change" to any incident, whether correct or not. Take the wildfires in Australia, the reason was always said to be climate change, but it was not a sensible reason and there was no data at all to prove this. A change in weather of temperatures 1 degree hotter than some other date does not cause severe fires. It was environmental rules which stopped controlled burning and other work, which had been carried out for many many years to prevent severe fires! In my view (I assume I am allowed to have one) is that the science is not at all settled, in fact most of it is bogus and false. It is simply the work of charlatans chasing after grant money. The computer "models" are certainly not in any way modelling the real atmosphere and are filled with so many fudge factors that their predictive value is zero. This is so unlike real Engineering models, such as P-Spice circuit simulators, as to be a joke. Also we cannot be told the original data or source code because they are "proprietary", an assumed value statement to gain credibility where none is due. The models have so far overestimated potential temperature increases by up to six times, in the last 40 years, and real temperatures have not risen steadily, as has the CO2 level, so again they do not show any useful relation to reality. There is also the case of the temperature records in the past being changed to lower previous results, and the loss of many feature periods by "homogenisation" of results, in other words straight fraud to make the past match the narrative. Would anyone like to challenge my view?

Thank you Gentlemen for your support. I am afraid that this degree of "censorship" is now common, particularly on the MSM eg BBC. It is said that the "science is settled" in the editorial policy, as well as a requirement to say "due to climate change" to any incident, whether correct or not. Take the wildfires in Australia, the reason was always said to be climate change, but it was not a sensible reason and there was no data at all to prove this. A change in weather of temperatures 1 degree hotter than some other date does not cause severe fires. It was environmental rules which stopped controlled burning and other work, which had been carried out for many many years to prevent severe fires! In my view (I assume I am allowed to have one) is that the science is not at all settled, in fact most of it is bogus and false. It is simply the work of charlatans chasing after grant money. The computer "models" are certainly not in any way modelling the real atmosphere and are filled with so many fudge factors that their predictive value is zero. This is so unlike real Engineering models, such as P-Spice circuit simulators, as to be a joke. Also we cannot be told the original data or source code because they are "proprietary", an assumed value statement to gain credibility where none is due. The models have so far overestimated potential temperature increases by up to six times, in the last 40 years, and real temperatures have not risen steadily, as has the CO2 level, so again they do not show any useful relation to reality. There is also the case of the temperature records in the past being changed to lower previous results, and the loss of many feature periods by "homogenisation" of results, in other words straight fraud to make the past match the narrative. Would anyone like to challenge my view?