Am thinking along the lines of it being the ‘other way round’
Along the lines of the much vaunted Polluter Pays principle – when said and done that what all this Climate Science is – pollution.
Media presenters would then be under an obligation NOT to mention CC, unless it was demonstrably provable that it did have a bearing on what they were talking about.
If it ‘just slipped out’, they personally would be required to compensate the viewers/readers who spotted it, recorded it or grabbed the screenshot..
Mmmm, yes, I like that. That one’s got legs, lets see it run.
As it is actually Real (what is called) Pollution in the form of NOx, SOx, Soot/Smoke, Farmland/City/Cement/Iron works, Traffic and Quarrying Dust that is causing the observed Global Greening – is it possible that the ‘pollution’ I’m referring to here has any, so far, unknown benefits?
It is such a big & magical world, plus, there is certainly ‘something‘ out there with an awesome & wicked sense of humour, I would not be surprised.
More research is called 4 metinks, watch this space