"'Consensus'" in quotation marks, alleged "conspir[acy]" by the British Climate Research Unit, and straw man "alarmists" everywhere. This article, like so many others in the Bad Journalism News Hunt, relies on recycled rhetoric for emotional weight, rather than soberly presenting the facts.

Contains no cost metrics, does nothing to support the "bye-bye economy" claim. The "recent revelations" are given zero context—context that essentially invalidates them as evidence against climate change.

A biased rant that has seems largely based on the author's imagination, with few links to factual evidence. Doesn't add much to the public discourse about this complex issue.

Biased and factually challenged on an important subject. Himalayan glacier citation cannot be described as a 'central claim' of the IPCC. The glacier claim was not mentioned in the highly visible summaries for policymakers. Scientists' studies show glaciers throughout the world are melting rapidly. Etc.

It's absurd to assert that the climate change consensus is "unraveling", and then cite a handful of isolated events that primarily constitute adjustments and qualifications in scientific studies. Moreover, "alarmists" are cited without naming the sources.

Typical Murdoch propaganda