The world of climate science is in a terrible state. Riven with political activists claiming to be scientists, funded by green billionaires and state actors interested only in the Net Zero agenda, reported by blockhead mainstream journalists who believe science can be ‘settled’ – and increasingly being questioned by bored populations fed up with listening to year-after-year, decade-after-decade ‘Jim’ Dale-style claims of boiling and collapsing climates. That is why the recent paper published in Nature by Cambridge Professor Ulf Buntgen has sent shock waves through a heavily-corrupted climate scientific community. At one point, Buntgen referred to the “ongoing pseudo-scientific chase for record-breaking heatwaves and associated hydroclimatic extremes”. He argued that quasi-religious belief in, rather than the understanding of the complex causes and consequences of climate and environmental changes, “undermines academic principles”.
Professor Buntgen is not a sceptic of the idea that humans control the climate by burning hydrocarbons. It is unlikely he would be published in a major journal like Nature if he was. But he is worried about climate scientists becoming activists by failing to work from actual observations. He is also worried about activists who pretend to be scientists. An excellent example of this can be found in the recent Guardian report that portrayed some of the hysterical claims of 380 “top scientists”. Billed as the views of writers of recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, a suitable response might have been ‘spot the scientist’.
The Cambridge geography professor observes that there is a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, “and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action”. Where to start on this one? There is overwhelming evidence that almost any scientific finding that casts doubt on humans controlling the climate thermostat will be ignored, and if that is unsuccessful, traduced or erased from mainstream view. In extreme cases, and certainly if the findings get any publicity, it might be necessary to put a billionaire-funded ‘fact’ checker on the case. A Guardian journalist helped get a science paper, Alimonti et al, retracted from a major journal because it cast observational doubt on claims of a climate emergency. Google has banned its ads from a page showing accurate satellite temperature on the grounds of “unreliable and harmful claims” of global readings. Less than curiously, the readings from this source happen to be generally lower than those produced by heat-corrupted surface readings. The state-influenced BBC has refused to discuss any sceptical view of the anthropogenic science opinion since at least 2018. Meanwhile, a UN communications official states that the world body “owns” climate science, and the world should know it.
Protected by the political and media class, the well-funded arrogance is off the scale. Buntgen notes that activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of “moral legitimisation” for their movements, which can be radical and destructive, rather than rational and constructive. “Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority”, he says. The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory “is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public”, he added.
One well known activist who frequently claims ‘the science’ to shut down sceptical debate is the BBC broadcaster Chris Packham. Last year, he presented a number of Earth programmes that attempted to link past increases in carbon dioxide to rapid rises in temperature – all in the “terror” cause of drawing links with current and upcoming climate collapse. Alas, the ‘science’ shows that over 600 million years there is little or no link between rising CO2 and temperature. But Packham perfected the art of taking imprecise proxy data from the geological record – imprecise as in a margin of error of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years – and comparing it to accurate modern measurements. You can do that of course, but the BBC should surely be under an obligation to provide space for others to dispute the suggestions. No such obligation is evident, needless to say.
Buntgen finds it “misleading” when even prominent organisations, such as the IPCC, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2,000 and even 125,000 years. “The quality and quantity of available climate proxy records are merely too low to allow for a robust comparison of the observed annual temperature extremes in the 21st Century against reconstructed long-term climate means of the Holocene and before”, he observes. Happily, it didn’t stop Packham working back no less than 55 million years.
Dr. Matthew Wielicki was a highly-regarded geoscientist at the University of Alabama but he left academia last year noting that American universities, “are no longer places that embrace the freedom of exchanging ideas”. He said they would “punish” those who go against the narrative. Contributing to this, he noted, was the earth science communities silence on the false ‘climate emergency’ narrative. “Members of the community routinely discuss the mental health effects of climate catastrophism but dare not speak out”, he disclosed.
For his part, Buntgen suggests that the ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only “creates confusion” among politicians, stakeholders and the wide public, but also “diminishes academic credibility”.
Next time you see dopey crinklies attempting to smash the Magna Carta (avid listeners of BBC Radio 4, no doubt), consider that the ubiquitous ‘Daleification’ of climate catastrophe promotion might have gone just a bit too far.
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.
Good line about dopey crinkles. Corrupt the few to influence the masses.
The climate crisis is a scam and making some very rich on the back of useful deranged idiots who think a trace gas of C02 that makes up 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere destroying the planet.
Plant and human life would cease without it.
Every good vegan should welcome increases in CO2, Mr Packham. It is good for plants, as are higher temperatures.
However an unsupplemented vegan diet is not good for the brain, which is why, I suspect, that so many vegans are climate catastrophists.
Like him I like Birds (and the other type) but I have not heard him complain about the ‘Bird choppers’
You do have to wonder what planet these people are on. I mean, in what realm does this absolute space cadet think that this strategy is ever going to come into force, let alone be complied with? Do these cultists just say things for the sake of saying them, so out of touch with reality they evidently are?
”Germany’s transport minister is threatening to ban driving on weekends to meet climate goals if the ruling coalition does not pass reforms to the Climate Protection Act by July.
“The fact that the amendment is still not in force leads to considerable legal and factual uncertainties,” liberal politician Volker Wissing wrote in a letter to the parliamentary group leaders of the coalition, German outlet BILD reported Thursday.
“This serves neither the climate nor the reputation of the federal government,” he said.
A reduction in traffic to help meet the climate goals would only be possible through measures that are difficult to communicate to the public, such as “comprehensive and indefinite driving bans on Saturdays and Sundays,” Wissing added.
If the planned reforms are not passed through parliament by July 15, Wissing warned, the Ministry for Digital and Transport would be obliged to submit an “immediate action program that ensures compliance with the annual emission levels of the transport sector” until 2030 — which would include a driving ban on weekends.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-cars-volker-wissing-minister-suggests-indefinite-driving-bans-on-weekends/
Have they considered those whose work week encompasses the weekend, or part of it?
Yes, precisely. That would apply to many, inc myself, and truck drivers on Saturdays, amongst others.
Honestly, if I wanted to listen to an arsehole I’d just fart.
Or they could let the deadline pass and ignore this fantasy law, they will realise that the World has not gone up in smoke.
Yes exactly. Insanity off the charts with these pathetic Chicken Lickens. Plus, they could just check the data from over the border here in the NL, now we know that 4 year experiment of lowering our motorway speeds made sod all difference so that we rejoin the rest of Europe once again and drive at 130km/h, as Geert recently announced. But that’s an inconvenient bit of evidence and when’s it ever been about the science and truth?
I’m wondering will those Dutch farmers ever reclaim their land!
A great quote form Judith Curry, Climatologist formerly of Georgia Tech. “Sure, all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in Earth’s climate are not equal”.———- The IPCC itself has said they cannot at this point tell the difference between changes to climate that are natural and changes that might be caused by human activity. They say they cannot see a human signal in the data. A lead author at the IPCC (von Storch) has said that there must be something wrong with the climate models as a “20 year pause in global warming does not appear in any of them”. So everywhere from experienced scientists and experts working in the field of climate we see caution and sober analysis. ————-On the other hand we have this quote from H L Mencken, ” The whole aim of Practical Politics is about scaring the populace with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary, so they are clamouring to be led to safety” ——–Climate Change is just the current hobgoblin, but isn’t it a whopper? ——-In order to get people to accept the massive changes to the way they live that Sustainable Development and Net Zero will require you need to scare people, and that is what the Climate Establishment is attempting to do. Politicians warn of the “climate crisis” and nearly everyday on BBC and other Mainstream News we are warned of the impending climate catastrophe. There is never any “sober analysis”. because people only react to scare tactics. If people think there isn’t much in the way of a “climate emergency” they won’t be in a rush to get a heat pump, a smart meter or an electric car. ——-In the real world though there is no increase in the frequency or intensity of any type of weather event, so the emergency is a manufactured one for political purposes.
” You can do that of course, but the BBC should surely be under an obligation to provide space for others to dispute the suggestions. No such obligation is evident, needless to say”……Maybe that should be taken up with OFCOM. That was the argument of Toby, that there is no bias, it’s just us on the right are a fair minded bunch and we don’t like to complain and cancel. BTW I am no fan of the state censor OFCOM and they are going after GBN again. I’m sure Mark Steyn has a few things to say about that and next month is his court day against them.
OFCOM———– “We must hold the BBC to account for fulfilling its Mission and promoting the Public Purposes on behalf of audiences”——-So the fact that OFCOM never pulls up the BBC for not questioning any aspect of the global warming narrative must mean that OFCOM, like the BBC consider all aspects of the official narrative on climate change to be ultimate truth. IT IS NOT. This not a black and white issue and at best it is riddled with uncertainty.
There’s a big difference between someone who’s been educated in a scientific subject and someone who thinks scientifically. The two are often conflated.
Even a well established theory should not be considered as being unassailable fact. All it takes is a single counter example to call a theory into question. An honest scientist should acknowledge that.
But when peoples’ livelihoods depend on being right they’ll go to any lengths to avoid an inconvenient contradiction.
Well done to that Cambridge professor for his sensible approach to climate hysteria. May I add a link to a fascinating new discovery showing why the pyramids were built so far from the Nile? It shows that they were actually right next to an ancient branch of the Nile, so it’s tangentially related to climate change. Please see the map (second illustration) showing how close the ancient river course was to the pyramids and temples, now so far away from the Nile.
Egypt: Newly mapped lost Ahramat branch of the Nile could help solve long-standing pyramid mystery | CNN
You cannot be both a scientist and an activist in this area as Professor Buntgen says.
“The state-influenced BBC has refused to discuss any sceptical view of the anthropogenic science opinion since at least 2018”
Actually it’s since 2006.
https://www.theregister.com/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/
It’s about the ‘anthropogenic climate change’ ideology and lucrative industry, not science.