I previously posed a question for Chris Whitty here on the Daily Sceptic. (Outrageously, I have not yet had a response.) To jog your memory, here’s what I asked.
In an interview with The BMJ on 4th November 2020, you (Whitty) characterised the Great Barrington Declaration as “wrong scientifically, practically, and probably ethically as well”.
Yet five months earlier, you had outlined a plan to the Health and Social Care Committee which sounded an awful lot like focused protection. You said that we’re “very keen” to “minimise economic and social disruption”, and mentioned that “one of the best things we can do” is “isolate older people from the virus”.
Given that you were recommending focused protection as recently as March of 2020, why did you subsequently describe the Great Barrington Declaration as “wrong scientifically”?
I now have a follow-up question for Professor Whitty. (If he answers this one promptly and in a satisfactory manner, I am willing to forgive his having ignored my first question.)
Professor Whitty, you opined that the Great Barrington Declaration is “probably” wrong ethically. I presume you said this because you believe that focused protection would have led to a higher death toll (notwithstanding the fact that you were recommending it back in March of last year).
The UK’s official death toll is on the order of 150,000. Let’s assume that if we had followed focused protection, the death toll would be double – i.e., 300,000. Note: I don’t consider this remotely plausible, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument.
Now, the ‘UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011’ states that planners should “aim to cope with up to 210,000 – 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a 15 week period”.
Given that “315,000 additional deaths” is comparable to the number of people who would have died if the UK had followed focused protection, which you regard as unethical, you must regard the UK’s pandemic preparedness plan as unethical too?
If so, why did you not seek to change the plan while you were Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care between 2016 and 2021? Note: the ‘UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011’ was published by this very department.
Thank you for listening, and I once again look forward to your answer.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
In 2006, after watching that tiresome piece of specious piffle, “An Inconvenient Truth” by the conman Al Gore, I wondered about that graph which showed a clear connection between atmospheric CO² concentration and global average surface temperatures.
He claimed that the former caused the latter.
I asked my peers, “How do we know it isn’t the other way around?”
Stunned silence.
A bit like when I asked my geography teacher if we knew when TheHoleInTheOzoneLayer™ first appeared. Actually, I think he laughed at me, and most of the class followed suit.
Awkward questions, eh.
Sorry about the superscript 2. My phone doesn’t do subscript
I was working for HSBC at the time in a distant place, far from UK – back around 2005. Guess what, all the staff in our unit were made to watch the Al Gore film by the powers that be at Head Office. No wonder so many believe all the global warming garbage when they have this enforced on them by the bosses.
The CEO of the last company I worked for, Marsh McLennan, berated us via internal company emails and everyone else via primetime US television about the “importance of getting vaccinated”.
C*nt.
I work in the same place and I got the same email. I’d placed him in the ‘New York lefty’ box prior to Covid so I wasn’t surprised.
Spent a chunk of last year worrying about a vaccine mandate being implemented, but thankfully it wasn’t and presumably the moment has passed now.
UK leadership are a bit more circumspect than head office in US, although equally woke. Thankfully the leader of my division is a bit of a lockdown sceptic (not vaccine sceptic though).
I’d have told him to mind his own business.
The system is just too complicated and impossible replicate for us to be able to understand it. Too many variables.
So I don’t think the climate fanatics know that CO2 causes temperature rises.
But I also think their critics don’t know for sure that it’s temperature that causes CO2 rise.
It could be both – they reinforce each other. It could be neither – a completely different set of factors. It could be both or either in theory but in practice other bigger factors prevail.
Who knows.
All I want is for self appointed guardians of our society to stop telling us all how to live our lives on the pretence that they know things that they really don’t know. They are playing with people’s lives on the basis of mere speculation.
Exactly. They can stick their “models” where the sun don’t shine.
This is not “new”. Been known and written about for many years by real Geologists and some Climate Scientists, and even some amateurs have known. And there is much “science” to back up the idea. Maybe the real shock is that these so-called “climate scientists” are new to these facts and are willing to go against their peers or something.
Why are you showing in your top photo cooling towers which release *steam* not Carbon DiOxide from those cooling towers? Why perpetuate the misinformation?
It’s true, so many people I know still think it’s smoke. LOL. I mean, the clue’s in the name – – – COOLING tower!
Explaining how power stations work doesn’t seem to help them.
Too much concentration and focus needed by their porn and Netflix-addled brains.
The only way to save us from climate change is to mandate CO2 limits for everyone.
The only way to save us from Covid is to mandate vaccines for everyone.
Those with the power to mandate connect with those who implement or reinforce the mandate, and a slice of the resulting massive profits get fed back to the mandators. A nice little scheme for the in-crowd.
Good post Mr Morrison. Please don’t forget Professor Pascal Richet, who last year wrote about co2 lagging temperature over the last four glaciations in a supposedly reputable journal Copernicus. His peer approved story was pulled.
https://www.history-of-geo-and-space-sciences.net/2021-05-26_hgss-2021-1_latest-version-of-the-manuscript.pdf
cart before the horse!
Thank you Chris. I have watched some of William Happer’s presentations and they are compelling. If I may correct you he does not merely “suggest” that the absorption by CO2 is near saturation. He and his team have calculated the effect of a doubling of CO2 and demonstrated it in graphically form as minimal.
This has been known for years.
The problem is that facts always lose in the face of ideology, such are the times we live
in…
Why can’t we post images any more?