Apparently the hitherto entirely unquestioning Private Eye has published a letter that is supportive of the sceptic position (H/T Philip Foster).
Whatever the shortcomings of the parliamentary commission on banking standards (Eye 1320), it's outrageous to claim that the presence of climate change sceptics, such as Lord Lawson, gives it a 'bonkers' feel.
Like or dislike him as a politician, Lawson's book on global warming like that penned by former Eye writer Christopher Booker is well researched, pointing out that the climate change debate is not over and that the "remedies" for global warming may well cause more damage than the condition itself. Given such factors as the other side's doctoring of emails, the flawed "hockey stick" graph, and the wild inaccuracies of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, it doesn't seem bonkers to request an informed, open, calm discussion of the whole subject.
This is all that Lawson has done, and Private Eye, with its usual healthy cynicism, should do the same, instead of toeing the current trendy orthodox line.
Whether this represents a gentle shift in the magazine's position or just an attempt to drum up a bit of an argument is unclear. Interesting, nevertheless.