We’re publishing an original article by freelance journalist Chris Morrison disputing the idea that anyone who challenges climate change alarmism is a conspiracy theorist. Some of them are actually quite respectable.
Just before he died the popular communicator Clive James wrote an essay entitled “Mass Death Dies Hard” in which he noted that in reporting climate science the BBC “has been behaving for several years as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union”. When he died, the obits mostly glossed over his apostasy, although in his lifetime the fount of eternal doom George Monbiot called him a “sucker”.
“When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true,” wrote James. “The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.”
The writer Melanie Phillips was the first editor of the Guardian environmental supplement and today is a trenchant supporter of debating the unproven scientific hypothesis that humans cause all or most global warming. She has called the idea of settled science a “scam”. Writing on her Substack after Justin Welby said that politicians failing to address the climate emergency would be guilty of indirect genocide, she concluded that his “grossly inappropriate comparison illustrated the way in which the climate issue has unbalanced people so they lose all sense of proportion”.
The only Apollo scientist who went to the moon, Harrison Schmitt, argues that there is “no evidence” that humans cause climate change, a reference to the fact that the hypothesis has yet to produce a single peer-reviewed, credible science paper that proves it. His scepticism is shared by Buzz Aldrin, causing the polemist (and sceptic) Mark Steyn to note: “Clearly this Buzz Aldrin kook is just some whack job who believes the moon landings were filmed in Nevada.”
Dr. Patrick Moore helped to found Greenpeace and spent 15 years with the organisation. These days he thinks Greenpeace is a “monster” having turned to extremism “to try to justify its continued existence”. In his view the atmosphere could do with more CO2 plant food since it is emerging from a period of denudation when levels fell dangerously low. In fact, the recent (mostly natural) small rises in atmospheric C02 have led to an increase in global vegetation of over 14% and helped alleviate devastating famine in many parts of the world.
Many eminent scientists, sometimes at great career cost, insist the proposition that humans cause the climate to change must be subject to debate and not treated as dogma. Former MIT physicist Professor Richard Lindzen observed that there is no data trend towards extreme temperatures and in his view “an implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct knowledge and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilisation”.
In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear antimatter Emeritus Professor Antonio Zichichi recently led 48 science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “Natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.”
Climate theologians have two main lines of attack in bolstering their infallible hypothesis. One is to suggest that opposing arguments are so intellectually bereft of merit that they are similar to denying the known, and proved, fact of the Jewish Holocaust – hence the use of the word “denier”. The second is to claim that anyone disagreeing with them is signed up to a conspiracy.
Last month IpsosMori produced a report on conspiracy theories and defined them as the “belief that an event or situation is the outcome of a secret plan”. Among those conspiracy theories considered by the report was the belief that “climate change is not due to human activity”. That’s right, challenging the climate emergency hypothesis means you’re an irrational troglodyte who probably believes the earth is flat and 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by the Israeli secret service. Sadly, it seems, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the only one struggling to keep control of his intellectual faculties.
In fact, a convincing conspiracy argument could be made for the promoters of settled climate science. We have seen that there is no substantive proof that humans cause all or most global warming. The entire push for net zero, which offers economic and political advantages to the few, not the many, is based on guesses of enormous temperature rises in the near future from climate models that have never produced an accurate forecast in 40 years of operation. What global warming there was appears to have petered out, a process that started in the late 1990s. The latest global temperature record from the University of East Anglia and the Met Office shows no rise for 91 months. The satellite record confirms this with over seven years of flatlining. In the U.K., this year is likely to be 0.5C chillier than 2020, while the 2010s were colder than the previous decade.
To counter all these inconvenient facts, the Guardian newspaper is now mandating the use of “global heating” in place of “global warming” because… well, it sounds hotter. Elsewhere in the mainstream media, the concept of a “climate emergency” – sometimes upgraded to “climate breakdown” – is in full swing. To promote this agenda, bad weather has been rebranded “extreme weather” and every fire, flood, drought, heatwave, and so forth, is used to argue that Thermogeddon is just around the corner. The emotional babblings of a Swedish child, who is said by her mother to be able to see the demon C02 gas with her own eyes, are elevated to international prominence. At the same time, Guardian activists sign a letter saying they will not “lend their credibility” to climate change “deniers” by debating climate science.
As early as 2006 the BBC met in a secret conclave and decided that humans cause climate change and the matter was not to be challenged on the airwaves. Sadly, that is the way journalism often works at the BBC, as Clive James, a free thinker to the last, came to realise. Stories are covered according to a set agenda. Even the gender of those whose opinions are aired is governed by a strict 50:50 rule.
Writing this article gives your correspondent an idea for a conspiracy theory book. A group of disaffected Marxists and Malthusians, ex-hippies, politicians with a ‘world king’ complex, and self-identifying scientists plan to take over the world by promising to stop the climate changing. They spin the line that burning ancient plant matter to live in conditions unimaginable to previous generations is the source of all bad weather and if allowed to continue will destroy life on Earth. To back up their scare stories, they consult crystal balls – I mean climate models – that warn of an approaching planetary fireball. If the title is not already taken, I shall call it Last Minute to Midnight.
Of course it would never sell – it’s not even remotely believable.
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.
LOL! Surely this makes him eligible for next years Nobel Prize…??
No, too early for that. He hasn’t caused enough needless suffering yet.
He’s got time…LOL!!
Well he’s definitely on time!
Time waits for ‘no man’.
Head of the UN, or WHO, and maybe UN ambassador for women?
He couldn’t explain the trend of excess deaths either. Is that what qualifies for next-gen?
That + being a Muslim + a socialist + a gender confused half wit + devoid of critical thinking skills + anti white racism + net zero fascism +.. + … + …..+
Everything once valued has been intentionally debased to mean nothing.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” ― George Orwell, 1984
This article is concerning and I’d have scoffed at it a few years back but going by the numbers of illegal incomers and all of the video footage of them landing on Europe’s shores ( as well as being hoovered up by NGO ships and dumped in Italy, in some lame pretext of a humanitarian effort as opposed to trafficking ) I think the Left are just now being more blatant about their intentions at eradicating us natives. I mean, they could stop this at any time if they chose to but the point is it’s proven without doubt that this is all a deliberate long-term plan. Yes, we’re talking about ‘the great replacement’ once again, in particular with a focus on ”cross-breeding”.
”The EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, said that “immigration could put an end to the European Union”, only to later add that due to demographic suicide Europe needs more immigration. Borrell said: “The demographic evolution of Europe shows that we need new blood and it does not appear that this blood comes from our ability to procreate.”
12.000 “new blood” persona just landed in Lampedusa, Italy.
Personally I have nothing in common – which does not mean that I have anything against – with Moroccans, with Tunisians, with Algerians, with Nigerians (perhaps only a bit with the latter half-Christians). Nor with the Libyans or the Malians. I have a lot to share, however, with the Irish, the Welsh, the Latvians, distant but still closer than the Senegalese, and I have a lot in common with the Jews… and with those who have the same roots of my culture and identity.
The use of biological language by Borrell’s left is interesting (“new blood”). For the Socialist Party in power in Spain, immigration is an “important opportunity for cross-breeding”.
The European Union has plans for how to “rejuvenate” the continent’s rural areas through immigration from the Third World. And if the UN speaks of “replacement migration”, UNESCO advocates the mixing of cultures to put an end to racism.
The historian of ideas Pierre-André Taguieff, once a point of reference for the anti-racist left and today a conservative thinker, wrote of this “mixophilic dogmatism”. According to Taguieff, it is “a new political religion” seen as “an ethnocide” associated with the “immigrationist and Islamophile discourse” and the “project of erasure and of origins and identities”.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/377944
“When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.
When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?
To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.
They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).”
Peter Hitchens
20min of Laurence Fox catching us up on what’s happened to him;
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1709991743775531184
A dodgier portrait photo would be hard to find ! A worthless soulless racist sh1thouse of the highest order ! He hates us so he’ll go right to the top
One wonders if he is one of Uncle Klaus’ numerous, young global leaders.
Well TIME also had Osama Bin Laden on the cover and Fauci and Zelensky as Man of the Year – so perhaps someone in the editing team has a great sense of humour. One can but hope…
Just think, if he was homosexual he would have ticked another box.