The FT blemishes its usual journalistic high standards with a shocking article on climate change. The article reports that the well known subversive left-wing organization the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration has released new data confirming what all data from any serious research body confirms, and that anybody older than 30 can pretty much figure out from memory - the world is warming.
The article gives the NOAA report a fair hearing, but then spends exactly the same amount of space citing various 'climate change skeptics', who still don't buy it. Who are these skeptics? Well, the usual figures include Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute and a guy from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (whose qualification to research climate change follows naturally from its slogan 'Free Enterprise and Limited Government'). It also cites Stephen Goddard, 'a blogger', and someone called David Herro 'a financier who studies climate change as a hobby'.
Now I would like to think that the FT's readership will look at this and think 'what a bunch of dorks the climate skeptics are'. But surely some won't crack the code? Why give half the space in an article in a paper like the FT to people with no qualification to say anything about the issue? Do they ask David Beckham what he thinks about financial reform?
On reflection, David Beckham has as much chance of saying something meaningful as many economists. But climate science is real science, and I honestly don't care what some random blogger or banker thinks about it.