The climate is up the spout and we’re to blame. The planet is boiling like a pan of porridge. We face the possible extinction of all life on earth. ‘Science’ says so. Anyone who questions it is a demonic scoundrel. The climate catastrophe is a 100% solid-gold, slam-dunk irrefutable fact.
Hmm. And yet, it is clear to anyone who has paid the slightest attention, that the tired, hysterical predictions of the climate alarmists (made repeatedly over four decades and based on their hypothetical computer-models) have proved to be spectacularly wrong, again and again and again. It does not take much digging (we have the internet these days) to discover that the outlandish claims of climate alarmists are flatly contradicted by lots and lots of perfectly good scientific evidence and data. We’re not talking here about fringe science put about by whackos. We’re talking about official data – mainstream science, published in respected journals. (Some of it is featured in my ‘climate-denier’ film, Climate: The Movie, available for free online).
The world is not boiling. We are, as any geologist will tell you, in an ice age – one of the coldest periods in the last 500 million years. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not unnaturally or frighteningly high. Compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history it is extremely low. And there is no evidence that changing levels of atmospheric CO2 (it has changed radically many times in the past) has ever ‘driven climate change’. If there had been, Al Gore would have said so in his silly film, but he didn’t. Hurricane activity is not increasing, nor are the number of wildfires, nor are the number of droughts, and so on and so on. This is what the official data say. You can look it up.
Of course this is all a bit embarrassing for the science establishment. The climate alarm is worth billions to them in climate-related funding. A lot of jobs depend on it. A lot of reputations are at stake. And it’s deeply awkward for the renewables industry, which turns over around a trillion dollars a year.
The climate alarm is not supported by scientific evidence. It is supported by bullying, intimidation and the censorship of anyone who dares to question it. Climate catastrophism is politics, shamelessly dressed up as science.
The climate scare was the invention of the environmentalist movement, which stands opposed to vulgar, dirty, free-market capitalism. They say there are too many people, consuming too much. We must be restrained and contained, for the sake of Gaia. The solution to the global, existential climate problem is higher taxes and more regulation.
At any social gathering, you can pretty confidently predict who will think what about climate, by asking them about taxes and regulation. People who love the Big State can’t get enough of climate chaos. People who want lower taxes and less regulation will roll their eyes and say rude things about little Greta.
Across the Western world, the state has grown enormously over the last century, vastly increasing the number of people whose livelihoods depend on state-spending, and whose jobs are related, directly or indirectly, to government control. In the U.K. and U.S. both, more than twice as many people now work in government as work in manufacturing. And this does not include all those (in the third sector etc.) who rely indirectly on government largesse.
These people depend on government. They are paid for out of taxation. In such circles to proclaim the joys of a small state, lower taxes and less government is a breach of social etiquette. You have crossed a moral line. You will be suspected of liking Donald Trump, of voting Brexit, of hating lockdown and compulsory vaccination, of defending the Second Amendment, of being a climate denier.
And indeed all this may well be true. These views tend to hang together. As do the views of those on the other side. To repeat, the climate alarm is in fact politics dressed up as science. We are, as more people are beginning to realise, engaged in a class war. On one side, the tax-consuming regulating class that feeds from taxation and bosses us about. On the other, the rest of us in the private sector, who rather resent paying taxes and being told what to do and how to live our lives.
This is the real basis for the consensus on climate change. The consensus exists among our sprawling, tax-consuming establishment. This is not a small group of people. It is an entire class. It is, if you will, the ruling class. It controls our civil service, our schools and universities, large parts of our arts and science establishments and much of the media. It is an intolerant class, deeply aware of its own interests. The taboo that surrounds climate scepticism is a reflection of its power.
It would be nice to think that politely pointing to the actual scientific data might put an end to all the climate chaos nonsense. Sadly it won’t. Because this ain’t about science.
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.
Whatever the IPCC may decide, big non Western countries (soon to be joined by the US) have no interest in prioritising emission reduction. As these countries (including the US) are the source of about 80% of global GHG emissions, emissions will continue to increase. And there’s nothing the rest of us can do about it.
No, no! Russia, China and India are fully signed up to Net Zero. Honest!
I’m sure xi Jinping signed any agreements asked of him.. and then walked away giggling
(As we ought to!)
The UN classifies India and China as ‘Developing Countries’ and therefore not part of the restrictions being demanded. The fact that the two biggest ‘poluters’ are effectively allowed to emit whatever they want, puts to bed that this is ‘scientific’ in any way. Climate Emergency, my arse…
Why wouldn’t they be “fully signed up to it” when they are absolutely aware that this entire hoax, from it’s inception, had been designed to destroy “the West”?
Statements are easy to find from Maurice Strong, Christiana Figueres, Otmar Edenhoffer and others, that IPPC’s aims have little to do with the Environment but rather to destroy Capitalism.
India and China are both “developing” countries who, despite space programmes and nuclear weapons, unashamedly hold out the old begging bowls!
All these people want is money, money and more money. At least the reasonable ones, ie not the Eat more plant-based fast food to save the planet!-faction.
But there’s so many silly brain washed naive virtue signalling idiots out there as well.
People can join, support and become active with ReformUK if they wish to do something to stop the Net Zero madness.
I think we can make a reasonable guess into which way this is going to go!
IPCC will become the global leaders in attribution, too much is at stake for the Alarmist narrative for it to be anything else!
Britain, as it follows the commands of Mad Ed Miliband will just become world leaders in economic suicide and societal collapse. And yes, we will win that race to the bottom, about the only race we can win!
But will the living standards of Miliband suffer?
This depends on how early he manages to get out of the country. Once the masses of global majority immigrants with scant – if any – command of English in London get cold and hungry, ie, start dying of starvation and hypothermia, they’ll find someone they will hold responsible for that. Hunger revolts ended Xi’s great Corona musical. They’ll also become the Ed stone marking Miliband’s final resting place.
This lot are running into a brick wall called reality, where governments such as ours are coming after ever greater tax takes and one of the causes, is their obsession with Nut Zero…..people then start asking questions and looking into the reasons and when they see the people/organisations behind this thinking are babbling bollox, rather than serious science…..but enjoying a very comfy lifestyle……they get very unhappy, very quickly……
Plus the IPCC may well be thinking we better start backing off, because President Trump is coming to town, to run a government that is also flat broke …but has a new governmental dept, whose job is to savagely cut expenditure, everywhere…….and who is the UN’s biggest contributor…yup the US……Good luck babbling scientific bollox to Musk….while flying all over the world, to wherever the next COP is, on a private jet, all on the US’s ticket.
No, IMO it’s much more sinister than that. They are aware the Global Warming narrative is stalling. So they now need to recognise the role of weather modification is playing so they can use it as an excuse. “Oh look at that, Gates projects to block out the sun is working and that’s why there’s been no global warming. But we still need the measures, it’s only being suppressed because of the measures we are taking and there can be no taking the foot of the accelerator.”
I fully expect we will see this very argument being made “by the other side” within the next year or so.
Anything that has to be agreed by 195 politicians will be useless, and wrong, just by the laws of human behaviour
Dear Humans Climate’s not your fault
Agreed but they will continue to constantly blame us all [especially if you are the “wrong” colour] for having the temerity to have been born and I am heartily sick of it.
If you go to the main IPCC website and look under “Reports” you will find that in the AR6 (Synthesis Report), under “Longer Report”, the main body of the report has been removed… All you get is “The file you are looking for cannot be found!!”
I’m guessing that was where this inconvenient morsel of sanity was to be sought and destroyed??
I noticed a recurring theme on Dews GB News when discussing the climate’; these days they seem to have two people in agreement on the climate, only disagreeing on how fast to drive off the cliff. But they both believe in MMCC. This is no different to the BBC. I sent them a bit of my mind calling them a disgrace etc.
They are captured. They are afraid.
So rain dances do work.
Here’s a challenge someone should pose to Professor Betts: Proove that you’re aware of all factors influencing the weather by accurately predicting the weather on next Saturday in a town of your chosing for the next 52 weeks.
Professor Betts doesn’t give a shit. If challenged, he quotes from the 100% political “Summary for Policy Makers”, even when this in flatly contradicted by the IPCC’s scientific findings.
The IPCC is a global warming activist group and nothing to do with science. They only look for human causes for global warming and ignore any inconvenient papers. They screech that everything must be peer reviewed while rushing to include convenient propaganda papers ahead of review. They include NGO propaganda as Donna LaFramboise showed in her book. And where else does a summary get published months before the report it summarises and when available shows all sorts of lies in the summary.
Remember that CO2 does not equal climate. It equals wealth. —–The countries who emit the most are the wealthiest for obvious reasons. China and India and other developing countries grow wealthier by using fossil fuels and therefore emitting more CO2.—-So remember the words of Edenhoffer of the IPCC who said “One has to free oneself from the illusion that climate policies are environmental policies anymore. We redistribute the worlds wealth by climate policy”.—-This is why Marxists like Miliband are so focussed on giving our money for the purposes of “Climate Justice”. They are globalists that believe in World Government where the wealth is spread out. —-Climate Change gives these people the ideal opportunity to indulge in this communism.
President Trump’s landslide win makes these zealots redundant. Nobody cares.
Weather is chaotic, climate is mathematically chaotic. Without any input from human’s, weather patterns and hence climate will change ie evolve without any attributable source other than where we are now is not where we’ve been before. Forcings can be identified but effects only attributable in the present as counter effects will then occur in the chaotic evolution eg sun gets hotter, more water evaporates and more clouds cause reduced warming might be a scenario.
If human input is then considered it will certainly change the evolution of the weather/climate system but how could one attribute a particular event or set of events or patterns to man made vs natural?
That assumes there is no catastropic event which breaks the system eg ateroid collision. Are the IPCC suggesting that man man made CO2 will cause a catastrophic break to the system? What?
How could a chaotic, evolved system be defined as a baseline against which human perturbations could be measured? The climate go forward baseline can’t be defined because it is chaotic. No matter how powerful a computer is used, the initial conditions can’t be defined precisely and calculated rounding errors will mean the calculated evolution will stray significantly from reality. That’s implicit in the definition of mathematical chaos.
Also change happens slowly and any evolving patterns can be mitigated as they start to embed. eg Sea level rise, build defences and new builds on higher ground. Don’t build on flood plains. Take advantage of changes both good and bad and don’t worry about their origin.
Build effective sustainable energy sources as technology evolves and natural resources eg hydrocarbons dwindle.
DON’T PANIC! And stop using climate to scare folk.
Only the Trump administration can stop this madness by throwing the Paris accord into the Seine. This climate cult scum needs to stop.