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.
Imagine calling a multibillionaire “courageous”. Get some sense. Musk is a shyster, and so is Marc Benioff, his fellow billionaire who owns Time.
Courageous downvoters – here’s an explainer for you about the world of the Daily Mail, including Mail Plus etc.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
You know what they say, if you’re getting flak, you’re over the target. Musk is a grifter, clearly some people want to emulate the twat, drooling over his money.
A grifter? You mean like so many politicians who earn their money with backhanders all day long? I think Mr.Musk is a tad brighter and grifter is not a word I would use to describe him.
Billionaire. Bad ? There are bad one’s of course. There’s some bad people in my local estate so I hear.
Sorry I gave up all msm for Lent
I would highly recommend everyone do the same. Msm serves no purpose.
I gave up TV completely as well in May 2021 ……and cancelled my TV licence. Uplifting!
I don’t have a problem with Musk’s selection; I just have to wonder why billionaires all have such weird hair.
Maybe there’s something of the Peaky Blinders about them.
He certainly comes across as a somewhat eccentric person.
There it is again. So people who have been baying for pay back for the last two years now get a global billionaire on the books so to speak and do I hear a round of applause ? No we get “he’s eccentric”. Face palm.
Looks like good old Ellen has been throwing his money at troll service. Personally, I just think he’s a dickhead, nothing to do with his money.
Musk says he will allow his son to choose his own gender.
Where are social services when we need them? They should make his son a ward of court, foster him, and require Musk to take re-education classes if he wishes to apply to get him back.
Musk is a bit of a touchstone. Some people realise what’s happening when a drug-addled billionaire talks up garbage such as self-driving cars, is allowed by the real rulers (who aren’t in the limelight) to become what in most people’s terms is extremely rich, pulls a few cryptocurrency scams because he’s bought a section of the “cool youth” market, and ostentiously masturbates with large vehicles into space. Others fall for him because they’re too stupid to realise any of the above for what it is, even when it’s right in front of their faces. Seriously your life has to be very sad if you think it’s exciting to watch a billionaire disgrace himself and have a J Arthur.
“talks up garbage such as self-driving cars”
You know those already exist? Bloody handy too when you need to take a slurp of coffee on the motorway….I know it’s against the grain on here but I love my Tesla.
As for Musk, he’s the least offensive of the elite i can think of, but i’m no fan of any of them.
It is hard to find role models these days, Boris, Biden, Fauci, whitty, Gove, Hancock,harris. So many to choose from. You know what I mean.
I am a big fan of Mr Musk and very grateful for his presence.
Yes you are right. I would rather sit and watch the current UK and USA gov’ts make fools of themselves. Mr. musk just gets on with his ideas and work. He fights for his and his employees rights. Don’t you just hate when people do that.
Déjà vu.
Personally, I can’t get sycophantic over a billionaire. There should be no billionaires, it gives them to much power & privilege, ironically whether musk is a lockdown sceptic or not, he clearly has no influence on this matter, so I can’t see we’ve suffered 2 articles about him.
Because he gave Toby a tiny scrap of fleeting attention, is why. There’s no other reason needed.
So he must just be a “victim” just baying for attention ? Derogatory to say the least.
But this has been the issue all along. An “elite” of billionaires, medical experts and pharma bods clearly gained too much power and influence. That does not translate to “everything bad”. I do not live in the Manichean world that seems to exist exclusively in the comment sections of this site but almost never in the actual articles.
The introductory paragraph to this article is cringemakingly embarrassing.
The title is too.
If I ever write anything so bad, please can everyone (especially friends) line up and shout “Stop embarrassing yourself, you fucking wally!” at me. Thanks!
Maybe not so anti-socialist after all then
I don’t understand your logic?
It’s not the wealth I object to, it’s the power over fawning idiots like you that directly affects my freedom that I object to.
Perhaps you have ambitions? Mine is to be free, not rule others.
Why is he “eccentric” ? That used to describe moth eaten millionaires in old stately homes who go around wearing deer antlers on the head all day, lol.
Well, when someone points out that he can’t use your mini submarine to rescue some cavers who’ve been trapped underground by water and your response is to call that person a ‘paedo’, that qualifies as a bit eccentric, surely?
Where did he say this ?
https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-apologises-for-calling-british-cave-diver-a-paedo-11440370
The facts weren’t disputed in court. Musk claimed in court that it had been a “JDart”, where an intended jokey tweet had been misinterpreted by the recipient, and he had immediately deleted it. The US jury took the view that that Musk’s Tweet had been a spontaneous response to the previous Twitter exchanges, and that its immediate deletion had limited the reputational damage that it had done.
Oh he qualifies alright. As a Tesla owner I’ve followed his Twitter feed for a while and he’s a proper nut job.
Yeah – fuck that shit.
https://elonmuskneuralink.com/the-neuralink-brain-chip-elon-musk-neuralink/
So this automatically makes Elon “bad” ? In fact is this tech inherently bad ? Like any tech it depends on whose using it. I’ve seen all the Technocracy and “reset” conspiracy theories. They do a good job in their own way but they are so inherently DARK. Sometimes I wonder if they’re Luddites. They never posit a world where this tech is in the hands of the good guys.
Why are you exerting so much energy defending him?
Elon is unstable. Much like Oswald Mosley. He could flip in any direction and any time. As such he is a potentially dangerous buffoon.
“rare”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10321397/Christian-Eriksens-Inter-Milan-contract-terminated-mutual-consent.html
I might be more inclined to agree if his opposition to lockdowns had actually had some sort of noticeable effect in changing policy.
As it stands, unless I’m missing something, he has accomplished nothing of substance and so I’m not quite sure whether his “courage” is any greater, any more consequential or any more inspiring to others than the courage of, say, the lady who was convicted this week for protesting in London.
I think going against the law/rules in your country as a business is a little brave. He took a risk that his business would suffer through his personal exploits. He kept his staff in work whilst others risked closing their businesses not knowing if there would be a business to come back to. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a big fan or anything, but anyone with his worldwide image making a stand is better than no one doing it, regardless as to his reasons.
He accomplished nothing. He did nothing significant to protest or lobby the state of California, where he was based, against lockdowns and mandates. Instead he packed up his company and buggered off to Texas, purely out of his business’ interest and bottom line. He’s not wrong to want to do so, but don’t sugar coat it as “standing up to tyranny” like another previous article did.
Isn’t this one of those WGAS articles?
Too many people think these characters and these magazines are important. They’re not outside the Bubble.
Over on YouTube, Thunderf00t (with 1M Subscribers) has utterly debunked Musk’s crazy projects – https://www.youtube.com/c/Thunderf00t/search?query=musk
While he might have been against lockdowns, I feel he is still a potentially dangerous buffoon, who would make men into robots.
The same Musk who pushes Universal Basic Income?
The same Musk who wants to send millions of satellites into space for the global surveillance grid? (In co operation with Bill Gates)
The same Musk who is developing brain implants to connect people’s physical bodies (and minds?) to IoT?
The same Musk whose cars and tunnel boring company is building the “smart cities”?
His lockdown skepticism is just theatre. At his core he is one of the oligarchs building the totalitarian hell in this world.
We desperately needed Mr Musk’s support. He recently was interviewed by a WSJ jounalist and his responses to her questions were a breath of fresh air. Musk is highly intelligent, but wisely knows his limits and admits that.
A Musk/DeSantis ticket in 2024 would be amazing. We can hope.