In 2013, the CNN presenter Deborah Feyerick asked if asteroids falling to earth were caused by climate change. Earlier this year, CBS anchor Nate Burleson commented on the Tonga earthquake by saying: “We talk about climate change… these stories are a harsh reality of what we are going through. We have to do our part because these are more frequent.” Last week, the academic networking blog The Conversation discussed the Fagradalsfjall volcano eruption in Iceland and asked: “Is climate change causing more eruptions?”, adding that it had the potential to increase volcanic eruptions and affect their size.
Dear God – they’ll be telling us that climate change causes lightning next. Wait, hang on – “Washington DC lightning strike that killed two serves as climate warning” – Reuters, August 5th.
In the climate change show, jumping the shark is now a daily occurrence, particularly in the mainstream media. Gaslighting on a global scale is evident as the media push the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Bad weather incidents and natural disasters are catastrophised to promote this increasingly hard-left political agenda. But the distinguished atmospheric scientist Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT recently voiced the views of an increasing number of people when he said the current climate narrative was “absurd”. Yet he acknowledged that it had universal acceptance, despite the fact that in a normal world the counter-arguments would be compelling. “Perhaps it is the trillions of dollars being diverted into every green project under the sun, and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists, along with the political control offered to elite groups in society by Net Zero, that currently says it is not absurd,” he speculated.
The Daily Sceptic has written numerous articles presenting evidence that global warming started to run out of steam over 20 years ago, despite the frequent, back-dated and upward temperature adjustments made by state-funded weather services. No science paper exists that proves conclusively that humans cause noticeable changes in the climate by burning fossil fuel. Despite years of research, scientists are no nearer knowing how much temperatures will rise if carbon dioxide doubles in the atmosphere. No link has been shown directly connecting temperatures and CO2 rises (and falls) over the entire paleoclimatic record. Countless natural processes play a part in determining climate conditions. And attempts to link individual weather events to long-term changes in the climate are produced by climate modellers and green activists giving vent to wishful thinking.
In the absence of credible science, there has been a resort to the name-calling, shaming and appeals to authority, common in previous ages. The recent news that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) had returned to blooming health, and was showing record growth, was a disaster for most mainstream media outlets. All parts had reported for years that the coral was on its last legs due to human-induced climate change. During this time, the GBR observer Professor Peter Ridd was vilified for stating that the reef was a vibrant and healthy ecosystem. He was fired from his post at James Cook University for pointing out the deficiencies in the output of reef science institutions.
In August 2019, the Guardian reported that the former Australian chief scientist Ian Chubb had accused Ridd of “misrepresenting robust science” about the plight of the GBR. Shamefully, it repeated without comment Chubb’s slur that Ridd was relying on the “strategy used by the tobacco industry to raise doubts about the impact of smoking”.
Professor Ridd emerges from the whole sorry affair with his reputation restored and an acknowledgement that true scientists report their findings without fear of the mob, or seeking the favour of the Establishment.
Just days before the news was confirmed that the GBR was continuing to grow back in record amounts, the Guardian ran a long article saying that scientists had demonstrated “beyond any doubt” that humanity is forcing the climate to disastrous new extremes, They hadn’t, of course, and “beyond any doubt” is a phrase borrowed from the criminal law, not science. Professor Terry Hughes from the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce estimated that close to 50% of the GBR coral is already dead. Attribution science is said to show that the hot March weather in 2016 that caused a “catastrophic die-off” in 2016 was made “at least 175 times more likely” by the human influence on the climate. A more realistic explanation, invariably ignored in mainstream media, is that the powerful El Nino experienced in that year warmed sea waters temporarily, and led to a natural burst of bleaching. Full reef health was quickly restored when the effect of the natural oscillation was removed.
The global media gaslighting over political climate change is easier to understand if you follow the money. Earlier this year, the Daily Sceptic reported that the Associated Press was adding two dozen journalists to cover “climate issues”. Five billionaire foundations, including the left-wing Rockefeller operation, supplied $8 million. AP now says over 50 jobs are funded from these sources. The BBC and the Guardian regularly receive multi-million dollar contributions from the trusts of wealthy donors. It is estimated that Bill Gates has given more than $300 million over the past decade to a wide variety of media outlets. Democrat power couple James and Kathryn Murdoch also help pay the staff’s wages at AP. On their Foundation web site, it is noted that there is an investment in Climate Central, where meteorologists are used as “trusted messengers” of the links between extreme weather and climate change.
Meanwhile, the foundation of the green technology-funding Spanish bank BBVA hands out annual €100,000 payments. Last year the cash went to Marlow Hood of Agence France-Presse, who describes himself as the “Herald of the Anthropocene”, the latter being a political renaming of the current Holocene era. In 2019 Matt McGrath of the BBC took home the annual prize, while in 2020 it ended up in the coffers of the Guardian.
The White Queen tried to believe in six impossible things before breakfast. It’s a shame climate change wasn’t around in Alice’s day.
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.
How awful to find out that the ‘wrong sort of people’ are actually already members of your elite club.
[sarcasm]
Brilliant comment.
One can’t help feeling sorry for the anguish expressed so plaintively by the eminent Professor.
“Any pleasure I may take in the distinction of the honour of an FRS is diminished by the fact it is shared with someone who appears to be modelling himself on a Bond villain, a man who has immeasurable wealth and power which he will use to threaten scientists who disagree.. . . having him in the Royal Society seemed such a contradiction of all the values of the Royal Society
Perhaps Mr. Musk might agree with the great philosopher, Groucho Marx: “I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!”
The Telegraph reports that anonymous Fellows of this worthy institution revealed that they will not voice their support in public, for fear of being ostracised – not least due to the unpopularity of defending Musk’s position on climate change.
Ah, so – climate change heresy, eh? Groucho had it right again – “Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.” Unlike the gullible believers of the ecocidal Cult of Net Zeroism, mandated by Starmer and his abominable acolytes, Marx G put it very plainly;
“I’m not crazy about reality, but it’s still the only place to get a decent meal.” He saw long ago the basic flaw in modern human society, regardless of the level of so-called sophistication,:- “Only one man in a thousand is a leader of men — the other 999 follow women.”
It will be interesting to see how many of the sheepish Fellows of the Society follow this woman.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. (Alexandre Dumas (Jr) 1865
Some scientist she is…
Nothing scientific about her. Another philosopher is all she is. Kantian theologist, a Relativist, a Stuff happensists, a Climate tard.
She is anti-science, like most of them.
Specialises in developmental disorders which seems apt for somebody who believes in global warming.
Oh well, never mind. Science is not built on consensus and needs free speech. If she can’t handle that, then good riddance and may she take all the other nodding consensus “scientists” with her.
Well said
What a self important cow she is!
I doubt whether Dorothy Bishop would agree with the following.
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part”
Richard Feynman
“Don’t pay attention to ‘authorities,’ think for yourself.”
Richard Feynman
“We live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.”
Richard Feynman
No, her head would explode.
The Royal Society has been captured, and therefore has lost its credibility.
In the Telegraph article cited, it quotes a Royal Society council member uttering the following statement: “There are quite a few, astonishingly, who don’t believe that man-made climate change is real.”
This clearly shows that a cult-like belief has taken over from science.
The Royal Society published its statement on climate change in 2020:
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
as if the subject is “settled science” (nonsense term).
Nearly all their Answers have been shown to be wrong by newer studies.
This is how science works, though that shouldn’t need to be pointed out to the Royal Society.
Moreover, essentially all the arguments presented boil down to a belief in modelling, which is essentially scientism, not science.
It would be nice to think that the Royal Society would publish a revision of their
statement using up-to-date research, but I’m not going to hold my breath for that.
The Royal Society also receives a substantial amount of taxpayer money.
You have to wonder whether that’s to ensure they only come up with the “right” answers.
When did Musk become sceptical of the idea of man made climate change?
If he has, I am glad.
Maybe he was mocking the save the planet brigade all along, by claiming that Tesla needs taxpayer’s money to build “plant-friendly electric vehicles”… I really hope so!
I would happily redirect all my venom from him to people like “Professor” Dorothy Bishop.
My goodness, it’s a tangled world.
Maybe I was wrong about Musk all these years. Hmm. I’ll wait and see.
I guess the offended lady and most of the Society are Rejoiner, globalist elite supporters. Any opinion outside the envelope they deem suitable for a leftie are to be condemned. Any member expressing such views has to go.
Dorothy Bishop, professor, is a member of the state bourgeoisie.
The point about the state bourgeoisie as a class is that it’s both a dependent class and a parasite class. Being utterly dependent on the taxpayers for its livelihood, its relationship with the rest of society is one of parasite to host. For this reason the state bourgeoisie seeks to bring the rest of society under minute, micro-managed control in a developing total-control state. Hence the adoption by the state bourgeoisie of the total-control ideology of marxo-fascism (aka wokism). Part of this ideology is, as we all know, the huge effort to squeeze all forms of intellectual freedom and independence out of society. Hence the need of creatures like Dorothy Bishop to silence and ostracise independent people like Elon Musk.
Parasite class…rather than elite class…I rather like the sound of that…how much more appropriate.
Something Iain Davis used in his book…..Pseudo Pandemic New Normal Technocracy.
I’m pretty sure that she would struggle to associate with some of the founders and early members of the society but that didn’t stop her joining. I’m also sure that scientists from the various golden ages would be appalled by the concept of settled science as they were always seeking to improve their knowledge.
I wonder how many of the Royal Society’s members support the idea that there are more than two genders.
She is entitled to her opinion, it is a great pity that self examination is not a strong point, the scientific community shut down discussion and debate regarding the causes of the pandemic, the reality of who and what percentage of the population would be seriously affected, they shut down discussion and debate regarding the efficacy and safety of the MRNA experimental products, and they supported criminal Lockdowns which we are reeling from to this day.
Science used to be about debate and testing of theories, unfortunately it has become a dogmatic, tyrannical religion for the promotion of Pharma, and Government funded zealots.
Musk may not always be right, but he has achieved wonderful things and believes in freedom for all, not just a tiny Oxbridge breed few.
“An Oxford scientist has resigned from the Royal Society…”
Which is all the better for it. The Clifford Suspension Bridge has left X in protest too.
It’s like observing 5 year olds.
Similar to the current government…or is that an insult to 5 year olds?
Probably. Five year olds aren’t grifters and criminals.
What very stupid woman! Standards of entry have obviously fallen since Newtons time.
My thoughts exactly. How on earth did this clearly stupid woman become a member of the Royal Society.
I’m not sure what values this woman is talking about because so far as the RS website is concerned its values are solely the promotion of science.
This woman takes herself very seriously.
Somebody has to.
Euphemisms for communist:
Social Democrat
Progressive
Liberal
Democratic Socialist
Socialist
Centrist
Centre Left
Centre Right
Remainer
And don’t forget now “Conservative” or “Tory”.
For balance we have Liberal Democrat = Fascist… the intellectual’s Communism.
The saddest thing of this is this: “But not every FRS approves of Bishop’s decision, and some have told the Telegraph, anonymously, that they support Musk’s fellowship”. People too afraid of putting their head above the parapet because some dusty old philosophy professor from Oxford has taken offence. Come on, show some spirit, PLEASE.
Yes, that is the most offensive thing about this sorry tale.
It proves that they should remove the science bit from the RS. Hello, I’m a fellow of the society. We used to do science but now we do The Science(tm).
Cat woman throws a strop. Hold the front page!
Your headline says “Scientist”. While I do not dispute that a psychologist/psychiatrist like Bishop may well merit the title Scientist she nevertheless appears to have no scientific qualifications to spout on about a subject upon which she frequently pontificates loufly and alarmingly: climate change.
Her position is funded by the Welcome Trust. Say no more.
“Prestigious”
Pah!
Another nobody who has done nothing and said nothing worth listening to
I am unsure whether an experimental psychologist can be truly classed as a scientist; equally I am sceptical of the decision to include psychology as a science as it seems to lack the objective nature that I have always considered a requirement for science.
Agree. There are too many variables involved in psychology for it to be a science for a start
Musk is not a scientist, has not achieved anything in science, so should not be an RS member. He should be offered something by the Royal Academy of Engineering.
The RS has exceeded its remit, but not just via Musk, also via adopting a “position” on Climate Change, even if the entirety of its members agree, such “positions” are unscientific. Does scientific integrity still exist in such bodies?
This Oxford scientist should just quit and leave it at that, but the fact that she thinks the RS will ditch Musk in response suggests another defect with the RS.
TheRS had a position on continental drift back in the day,the proponents of the theory were treated in the same way as today’s climate sceptics.The rest is history.
Had it existed in Ptolemy’s time I suspect I know where it’s opinion would lie as to the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
The article says she is a scientist whereas the internet says she is a psychologist.
As much a scientist as Mystic Meg.
I’m trying to think what this woman has achieved compared to Musk (like or loathe him). The answer is SFA, so just go, nobody will miss you
The Royal Society has long been hollowed out by virtue signalling, hubristic Lefties.
Consider Geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society 2010-2015.
Nurse was one of the occupiers of Birmingham University’s Vice Chancellor back in the late 1960s and was already selling Socialist Worker on street corners, which he continued for many years. Now boasts of being a Labour Party Member for over 40 years.
As President of the Royal Society he was on telly a lot pontificating about Climate Change, or ‘Global Warming’ as it was then called.
I remember him being asked how much CO2 was already in the atmosphere. About 7% was the prompt reply. Actually then, about 0.035%.
Such an inspiration to us all. And he is VERY far from being the only one.
Well, that has probably increased the average IQ of the remaining members.
I don’t think she has ever realized that the motto of the RS is translated as ‘Take nobody’s word’.
So at last she has shown some wisdom in her decision. There seems to be several others who would do well to reflect on this.
The Royal Society has had a Professor specialising in language impediments in children, resign over Elon Musk’s climate science scepticism? Such a cancel culture academic is no great loss.
She’s a professor of neuropsychology. Very convenient to have existing raw material to work on.
What other kinds are there?
In science you question everything. So why can’t Musk question Climate Change?—-This silly Liberal Progressive (Communist) only reveals one thing by wanting rid of Elon Musk. That Climate Change isn’t and never was about science. It is a Political Agenda to be rid of Capitalism. It is about control of wealth resources and YOU, and Elon Musk in the new Trum Government puts a spanner in the anti Capitalist works. These idiots just don’t realise how absurd they are when they come way withe stuff like “We follow the science” or “The science is settled”——NOPE. What they mean is that they follow the Politics and that the Politics is settled.
This woman came from the scientific speciality that was used to push the Covid propaganda. So much so, that the majority of people still cannot accept that Covid 19 was 98% survivable and the jabs have a higher risk than Covid 19 in most age groups.
So she is either stupid or a useful State tool against the masses.
She probably doesn’t understand the depths of her own stupidity, which in her chosen field is irony at its best!
Rather than resigning why doesn’t she put a compelling case proving that anthropogenic climate change is real and thus prove E Musk wrong? Ah thought so….
What has ” her/ she” brought to the table?. Nothing of note I wager. The RS is an outdated concept that went down hill following Newton’s departure.
I wonder what the arrogant, “woke,” Prof Bishop has ever really contributed to the advancement of science?
I’ve never heard of her, so I suspect it’s the square root of SFA. But she obviously has a nice, cosy sinecure at Oxford which she is desperate to maintain …. so perhaps she was involved in the development of the AstraZeneca jab – now withdrawn because it was killing people.
So because someone doesn’t share your “views” they must be a terrible person, well here’s a thing dear, I agree with him and you’re not exactly a “scientist” are you?.
No great loss to the prestigious society!
That has shattered my illusion’s, I thought you had to be bright to be a member of the RS. There is a lot I don’t like about a lot of people but, I am not so fool hardy as to want to cancel them. I detest some peoples attitudes to some things but, not all things. What a boring world it would be if we were all made in each other’s shadows and images. Frightening in fact. It’s the road to hell or, communism.
It sounds as if the right person has left the society, maybe more from the cult of The Science(tm) will leave.
Sorry, Dorothy who?
I’ve heard of the other Musk chap though…
I thought Musk had restored free speech. Previously, it was the woke liberals preventing discussion of Lockdown and Climate Chane
God bless Elan Musk. Grateful to have him in our lives.
Marvellous, the whole damn lot of them can’t resign too soon as far as I’m concerned. Elon is absolutely right to call for the prosecution of Fauci. Rand Paul will incarcerate him sooner or later for crimes against humanity.
The vaccines have already killed millions, far more than the virus.
Elon is of course right about Climate Change. Most of the leaders across the world are laughing at the stupidity of the British following this scam.
The pompous posturing by Royal Society fellows is more likely to relate to their funding drying up rather than genuine concern for the citizens and climate.
Good riddance.
The only media that can be trusted to produce reality and differing opinions is X. The rest is bought and paid for.
Yet another high brow, left wing, academic who believes that anyone who doesn’t believe that her views are superior to anyone else’s should be disregarded. Rod Liddle said recently (on a different matter), “I had thought that was one of the things – one of the important things – that distinguished us from those insufferable middle-class liberal lefties who cannot believe that other people have views which differ from their own. And if they do have those views then they are not merely wrong, but loathsome. And perhaps reprehensible. And that those views shouldn’t count because they should be illegal”. His comments describe, exactly, what we see here; Dorothy Bishop, essentially storming out in a huff because someone had the temerity of holding a view contrary to her own. Good riddance Ms/Miss/Mrs/whatever Bishop, in my humble opinion.