We’re publishing today an article by James Dent, a retired hydrologist and meteorologist. In a long career, Mr. Dent worked in many parts of the world, specialising in floods and droughts. For a time, he was the World Meteorology Organisation Chief Technical Advisor to the Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre in Bangladesh. The article was initially published in the British Hydrological Society journal Circulation, but was quickly withdrawn.
Here’s an excerpt:
Like the predictions of the progress of Covid, we need to ask what the limitations are to modelling. Too easily the model output is given the status of truth, and quickly becomes unchallengeable. Climate change predictions have been commonplace for at least 25 years, but I recently read an agricultural journalist state that in the future, farmers will have to cope with hotter, drier summers, and warmer, wetter winters, and there will be more extreme events. The message has remained the same, so have we not yet reached the predicted future? It becomes easy to summarise complicated ideas into sound bites.
Over the last 15 years, I have resigned from two national institutions which have incorporated climate change hypotheses into rigid policy statements. This situation could so easily escalate to the dystopian future depicted in the recently published novel The Denial by Ross Clark. Like all the ramifications and issues relating to Covid, the danger comes when theoretical projections provide the basis of legislation, or define the stance of particular organisations, while the media presentations rely on throw-away lines and virtue-signalling in reporting.
I can see similar dangers arising from so-called ‘environmental’ policies, such as ceasing river dredging and weed clearance, ‘rewilding’ and abandoning land and road drainage maintenance. Ultimately we could find ourselves regressing to medieval conditions, where roads and marshy areas become impassable in the winter months.
British Hydrological Society (BHS) President Hayley Fowler, Professor of Climate Change Impacts at Newcastle University, subsequently explained that the paper was “a personal view from one of our membership that climate change was not a real phenomenon”. She went on to say: “We do not think it is appropriate to provide them with a forum under the BHS logo.” She further noted that the “climate sceptic” viewpoint did not represent good scholarship in science and we “will be reviewing our governance procedures to make sure that members voices can still be heard, but through the lens of good science”.
James Dent’s essay would have passed without comment 20 years ago. It is statement that climate has always changed, sometimes within short intervals, and climate models produce forecasts, not unchallengeable truth. As I noted in a recent article, the broadcaster and current UCL Professor of Earth Systems Science Mark Maslin said in 1999 that “some, and possibly most, large climate changes involving movements of several degrees centigrade occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even a few years”. By 2014, Maslin was writing articles titled “Why I’ll talk politics with climate change deniers – but not science”, while in 2020 he suggested the origins of racism and climate emergency “share common causes”.
Justifying her Dent banning order, Professor Fowler claimed that anthropogenic activities had unequivocally modified Earth’s climate, causing increasingly disruptive socio-economic and ecological impacts. She suggested that changes to large-scale climate patterns had resulted in increasingly frequent and intense examples of extreme weather events. Global temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century and would rise by 1.5°C and 2°C during the next century, unless there were deep reductions in human-produced carbon dioxide.
None of this is based on proven scientific fact. Humans are part of nature and have probably had some effect, likely very small, on the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuel, for instance, adds just 4% extra CO2 to an atmosphere that some scientists suggest needs more of this highly beneficial plant food. Ascribing individual weather events to long-term changes in the climate is not science – no credible data that could be falsified is available – it is just someone’s opinion. Prof. Fowler puts great store by the “strength of scientific evidence” presented by the IPCC. As we have seen, recent IPCC reports are often produced by writers such as herself, with similar academic interests and defined outlooks.
Forecasts of future warming come from unreliable computer models. Highly inaccurate guesses are produced because scientists cannot agree on the crucial issue of the amount of warming caused by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates range between 0.5°C to 6°C. Many scientists now suggest lower estimates are more realistic, and these fall within margin of error territory. In this territory, it will be impossible to tell whether minor changes in temperature are caused by relatively small amounts of human-caused CO2, or countless other natural causes. Driven by a green climate agenda, the IPCC authorities still favour the higher estimates.
Global warming started to run out of steam nearly 20 years ago and temperatures have been at a standstill for over eight years, according to accurate satellite data.
The graphic above shows clearly the divergence of climate model forecasts from the actual temperature recorded in the thicker green line. Increasingly inaccurate forecasts are seen from the late 1990s. Note the standstill from around 2014 and the slowdown of warming since the mid 1990s peak.
According to Prof. Fowler, large scale climate patterns have resulted in increasingly frequent and intense examples of extreme weather events. What is the definition of ‘extreme weather’, it might be asked – according to the graphic below, it does not seem to be based on human lives lost.
According to Prof. Fowler, many changes in the climate system become larger in direct relation to increasing global warming, and this includes increases in the frequency of intense tropical cyclones.
If there are going to be any increases, they haven’t shown up in the above record yet. Both hurricane and cyclone activity show similar trends going back over 40 years.
Prof. Fowler concludes with some thoughts on the hydrosphere “where the most profound impacts of climate change will pose the greatest risk to Earth’s biomes”. Continued global warming is projected to intensify further the global water cycle, including variability, global monsoon precipitation and the severity of wet and dry events.
Such events might be expected to affect large land masses like the United States. Detailed historical records are available across this territory going back to 1895. Like the storms, the above chart shows there is no great change discernible yet.
The Daily Sceptic asked Professor Fowler to comment further on the Dent cancellation. She was asked to explain what she meant when she said members’ future voices will be heard through the “lens of good science”. At time of going to press, there had not been a reply.
Read James Dent’s banned article here.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
Commies, Commies everywhere but not an axe to sink.
Where in this did Dale Vince state that he considers Hamas freedom fighters?
The critics would be happy if he gave an answer they find acceptable? Who’s really trying to censor opinions?
You genuinely cannot work it out from what he said and the context of the question? Even Rayner worked it out.
It would be easier if you just quoted where he says it but since he declined being “put on the record” (ironically an attempt to have his speech controlled in the way the Left does) I doubt there is a quote.
I don’t recollect Angela Rayner opposing the government’s pandemic response or saying how “appalling” it was despite this being based on promoting fear in the population i.e. terrorism. One man’s politician is another man’s terrorist.
Israeli Govt vs. Hamas is just Terrorists vs. The Terrorists they ensured were funded. Some may agree, some may disagree but that’s the subjective nature of it.
Edit: subjective except for the funding.
I remember Rayner defending all the fascist countermeasures on Talk Radio to JHB.
“I think one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, right? That’s how it works.”
Ergo, according to Vince, Hamas are freedom fighters. Any questions, let me know.
Have you noticed it’s always the terrorist supporters that wheel out that old line? Never fails. As if there’s any sort of ambiguity involved when it comes to known death-obsessed Jihadists that can’t stop broadcasting to all and sundry how much they hate everyone who isn’t like them and want to take over the world…Jesus wept. Good and patriotic people oppose terrorism, West-hating traitors aren’t backwards in coming forwards about showing their contempt and where their loyalties lie.
Many in the British Isles saw the IRA as terrorists for obvious reasons. Not all Americans thought that way but from their perspective, were they any less good or patriotic for supporting them?
Repeating this well-used slogan, which can be controversial, recognises that some may consider them freedom fighters but is that him expressing his personal view?
Well his comments sound pretty charitable and supportive of a Qatari based ultra-violent cartel of medieval gangsters, whose primary goal in life is to destroy Israel and Jews from the river to the sea. He’s not quoting anyone else here. He said this.
Dale Vince also wants to disarm Israel in the face of this ongoing threat, thereby aiding Hamas in their goal of wiping them out. So on balance, Dale Vince is demonstrably a Hamas supporter.
Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-term efforts to ensure Hamas remained funded, including up to a few weeks prior to the attack, may have been more significant than this opinion? If so, why would this spat make DS headlines yet nothing on Netanyahu?
I don’t know about that and I haven’t seen any evidence of it. I do know that almost $10 billion of Palestinian funding was provided by various Middle Eastern countries and spend on weapons, tunnels and various other ways of attacking Israel and brainwashing its populace into believing that they’re the one true enemy. I also know for a scientific fact that Dale Vince is a posturing, bovine, morally deranged dildo.
It’s easy to find articles on it, particularly in the Israeli media where they are acutely aware of the problems it has caused.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/hamas-israels-own-creation/
DS: a “-1” green downtick. How is that achieved?
Someone trying to agree with you when it’s not their true opinion. DS reads your mind.
By the way, I do disagree with you.
More likely it’s a bug.
The most obvious interpretation of the reply is that he is stating his opinion – which is what he was asked to. He may have been making a general point but that seems unlikely to me. I think the point here is that he’s trying to wiggle out of saying something that makes him look bad. But without more context, which I do not have access to, it’s hard to be sure. I’m not keen on anyone suing anyone else for this kind of thing – how a phrase is interpreted. Although I am an admirer of Bridgen I was dubious about him suing Hancock. Calling someone anti-semitic is just an opinion and as such it should be up to the court of public opinion to determine how accurate it is. Suing should be limited to telling lies on matters of fact, IMO.
Given the political views that seem to accompany the green movement: stating Hamas are terrorists may have been more damaging? He’s responding like a politician would and leaving it open to interpretation. If he does think Hamas are freedom fighters, that’s his opinion.
I agree suing people for this is not the way to go but the legal system isn’t about facts, it’s about interpreting them and the best storytellers cost more.
It’s also worth remembering the UK government defended its relationship with Qatar despite their support for Hamas. Perhaps Labour will consider this “appalling” but I doubt it. One governments terrorist funder is another governments ally.
True but it’s good when the other side is hoist by their own petard. Once he used that slur outside Parliamentary privilege it was fair game.
I’d prefer our side were more consistent, but I am hesitant to be too
critical of Bridgen who has paid a price for his efforts
Seems pretty clear to me he is supporting Hamas actions. A simple “Yes / No” would clearly have done and still could. How he can win cases when his meaning is clear to 99.9999% of people is beyond me.
And GB News has form caving into pressure like from Ofcom. They let Mark Steyn down and they let their based viewers down. Dolan you are a sellout and cos play freedom fighter.
It could equally be argued that anyone supporting the Israeli government before Oct 7th 2023 enabled Hamas. Hamas didn’t develop a new belief system for Oct 7th and their support from the Israeli government wasn’t a secret.
Interesting as well that Angela “I stole your money” Rayner was more than happy to take his money. I think I am more appalled by the fact that a known thief accepted a massive donation from a known terrorist activator and a man who clearly implies it is okay to behead women and children.
“Deputy Prime Minister, branded the comments “appalling”
These little thumbs are doing my head in. I just upticked you but you’re still on 0, other people seem to be in minuses for their green numbers. What on earth does a minus green number signify??
DS mods, you’re twisting my melons, man..
I agree Mogs. The ticking seems to have gone a bit weird.
Hamas ARE “freedom fighters”.
Fighting for their freedom to wipe Israel and Jews off the map from the river to the sea.
It doesn’t matter whether they are Jews or any other religion or race. They are a foreign occupying force of 76 years.
Who is fighting whom? Who is bombing whom?
It must surely be clear by now that Israel is trying to wipe out all Palestinians in Israel, both in the Gaza strip and in the West Bank.
The Lancet recently reported an estimated 186,000 dead now in Gaza.
Haaretz recently reported, as The Grayzone has been reporting for months, that a large percentage of Israelis killed on 7th October were indeed killed by the IDF following the Hannibal directive.
Israel also told the Palestinians a day or two ago to evacuate Gaza City and move to the south. Move again. Of course, they are not allowed to leave the prison of the Gaza strip, just move about from one bombed area to another and hope they will survive.
And if they survive the bombing, will they survive starvation?
Charming people, the Israelis.
Not just Jews, infidels- anyone who is of any faith and none
A bit like ISIS then?
Obama knows about ISIS. his dirty little secret.
More like the French Resistance in WWII but more justified after 76 years of foreign occupation.
I actually agree with Vince on the basis of the statement as reported.
Is he suing for simply reporting what he said or for any interpretations made by the defendants?
Either way it strikes me as bullying by Vince simply because he is rich.
I have watched the video. By no stretch of the imagination can there be any doubt as to Vince’s intended meaning.
I was talking about the phrase not the context in which it was used. It depends on which side of the fence you sit as the whether you see a group as one or the other. Vince is clearly a supporter of Hamas/critic of Israel and sees them as freedom fighters. I disagree. They are clearly terrorists and this was one of the few things the old government got right.
Clearly a man with too much money, and with a very high opinion of himself and his standing in society. How marvellous it must be to be able to use his money to shut others up who dare to use his own words against him. It never fails to amaze me that people with so much money have so little self reflection in that they are so weak and thin skinned that they will actually amplify the negative things they are trying to cover up, wheras if he had ignored the comments he could have remained a unknown, individual. Now he has exposed himself in an unflattering light. Better that he would have used his millions to try and help those Israeli hostages and families, and those Palestinian pawns to find safety and peace. But ego seems to be the winner on this one.
As I understand it Dale Vince’s millions come from the “green” industry. Or to be blunt taxpayers via subsidies paid to Nut Zero scamming outfits.
I am happy to be corrected if wrong.
His whole business is subsidy based largely – I did wonder if Labour forgot how much he gave them when I saw their comment… though maybe now they are in power, they no longer care about keeping donors on side
Has Guido set up a donations page because I would be delighted to chip in?
Of the thousands of utterly detestable leeches with a public platform Dale Vince is in the top twenty.
The legal profession would be delighted as well. Thank you for your service.
So you are a member of the ‘legal profession?’
No, I was thanking you on their behalf because they probably won’t acknowledge it.
Very kind of you.
I remember the days I was on Facebook and found a website dedicated to my old boarding school, and there was no win no fee lawyers trawling for scandal.
Does the article “in full” mention BP’s contribution to the Treasury?
To be precise :
bp’s own operations directly created a £15 billion gross value-added contribution to GDP. bp directly generated £1 in every £170 of UK GDP in 2022. bp employed 15,468 people and stimulated a further 68,000 jobs along the UK supply chain.
in contrast to this Green opportunist who is bleeding the taxpayer dry.
Much appreciated
Thank you