Building Design editor attempts to demolish climate change argument

Amanda Baillieu has laid bare her utter contempt for environmentalism but failed to construct a solid argument

An article from the Building Design magazine website written by its editor Amanda Baillieu. Photograph: bdonline.co.uk
The climate change debate has a habit of rearing up unexpectedly in all manner of places. In recent days, it's been the turn of the architecture press.
Proceedings kicked off when Amanda Baillieu, the editor of a magazine called Building Design, used her column last week to ask: "Is global warming hot air?" With her utter contempt for environmentalism laid bare for all to see, Baillieu trotted out the familiar sceptic's line about there being a "growing wealth of scientific evidence" that climate change is not predominantly man-made. Of course – as is now usual with such a claim – she didn't actually point to where this evidence has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
However, her comeback comments to the string of outraged readers were even more revealing. The cut-and-paste sceptic reposts from Baillieu kept coming: "Environmentalism is now officially a religion" (er, no it isn't, as she might have realised if she'd bothered to carefully read the judge's statement); "Recent warming has stopped since 1998"; "The science is not settled"; "Regulations that are based on very questionable statistics which are simply there in order to have an outcome that support what politicians want to hear." And so on.
Baillieu also implied – by using the medium of her magazine, which offers the option for online readers to leave their own comments – that there is somehow a suppression of free-speech taking place.
Naturally enough, a rival magazine called Architects' Journal issued a repost on its website, entitled "Amanda Baillieu's BD editorial is full of hot air". Again, Baillieu's views were largely monstered by those within the architecture profession. But she did drop by herself to defend her position; another example of the suppression of free speech, then. As people kept asking – and Baillieu keeps failing to do – show us this "growing wealth" of evidence you speak of.
Anyway, to give Baillieu her dues (editors always love a good controversy, as is clear by the joy she has displayed on her Twitter feed over the hoopla), rather than retreat, on Friday she came out blazing with yet more of her contrarian views.
A new article has been published asking, "Should we question green orthodoxy?" It begins: "Readers are split in their responses to last week's leader calling for a debate on climate change." This suggests that there was a 50:50 split in responses, which doesn't appear to be the case if the reader comments on the online version are anything to go by.
But Baillieu doesn't leave it there as she pops up again with a new column called "The climate debate isn't over". It includes the classic line:
Apocalyptic language is now standard, but when it is challenged the proponents of emission[s] reduction point to science for their answers.
Er, yes, that's always a sensible idea when trying to put forward an argument.