An open letter to all political leaders currently fighting a General Election in the U.K. calling for an “ambitious” programme of green policies has been signed by 408 climate activists. The BBC refers to “the most distinguished of the country’s” climate scientists; Bob Ward, who organised the petition through the billionaire-funded Grantham operation, tweeted, “be ambitious on climate, scientists urge parties”, while James ‘the climate clock is ticking’ Murray from Business Green stepped up a gear by referring to “top scientists“. Scientists, you say? The first ‘scientist’ in the alphabetical list is an Associate Professor of Accounting, the second is a geographer specialising in “disaster risk reduction”, while the third is an archaeologist.
The green Grantham stunt is of course the latest in a long line of attempts to suggest that most ‘scientists’ believe humans control the climate. The letter refers to “growing damage to lives and livelihoods” in the U.K. caused by increases in the frequency and intensity of many extreme weather events. This evidence-lite but ubiquitous assertion is not even backed up by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which finds there has been no human involvement in most natural events such as floods, droughts, wildfires and cyclones to date. Nor is human involvement detected in forecasts stretching to 2100.
There are some academics who have signed the letter who can be fairly described as scientists, but the vast majority would struggle to justify such a title. The list is littered with lawyers, psychologists, philosophers, landscape designers, engineers and computer modellers. One interesting take from the letter is to note how many ways a university Geography Department can be renamed to capitalise on the climate zeitgeist. A similar ‘scientists’ stunt was pulled last month by Damian Carrington in the Guardian, who polled 400 so-called scientists and in an ocean of emotional guff concluded the world is heading towards a “semi dystopian” future. Signed up for both agitprop operations is Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, who is described as the Director for U.K. Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformation. A more enlightening CV might note that she is an “environmental psychologist” whose first degree was in theology and religious studies with French.
Perhaps Marco Silva, the BBC Verify climate ‘disinformation’ specialist, could cast a critical eye over the Ward letter when he returns at the end of the month from his six-month re-education sabbatical at the billionaire-funded Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN). One or two signing names might be familiar to him, including Saffron O’Neill, described as a Professor of “Climate and Society”. She is a past speaker at the OCJN and is noted for speculating on the need for “fines and imprisonment” for expressing scepticism about “well supported” science.
Would any scientist seriously sign up for such a policy knowing that it would destroy the ongoing scientific process? A process, it might be noted, that has served humanity so well, certainly since the time Pope Urban VIII played the ‘well supported’ argument and cut up rough with Galileo and his heretical view that the Earth orbited the Sun.
The Ward letter is a Grantham operation and is ultimately funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham. Two Grantham Institutes are funded at the London School of Economics and Imperial, where a computer model ‘attribution’ operation is used to garner headlines with implausible claims that humans have caused individual weather events. Investigate science journalist Ben Pile has tracked some of the major contributions made by Grantham up to 2021.
As well as significant sums paid to LSE and Imperial, there are major contributions dispersed to other green foundations that crop up all the time when there are global Net Zero collectivisation narratives to be spun in the media, politics and academia. Jeremy Grantham has a long track record of preaching about the coming apocalypse, asking a 2019 meeting in Copenhagen, “what should I do, you say?” He met his rhetorical question by advising:
You should lobby your Government officials – invest in an election and buy some politicians. I am happy to say we do quite a bit of that at the Grantham Foundation… any candidate as long as they are green.
Ward is employed by Grantham at LSE to “communicate” climate science, notes journalist Matt Ridley. For years he complained to the newspaper industry’s self-regulator IPSO about climate articles that took a sceptical line. It was part of a campaign of “sustained and deliberate” pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line, states Ridley. Ward tied journalists down in a time-consuming process in the hope it deterred them and their editors from writing and commissioning work. It worked, observed Ridley, noting, “he has frightened away some journalists and editors from the vital topic of climate change, leaving the catastrophists with a clear field to scare children to their heart’s content”.
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.
Amazing published on the same day as Labour announce their energy policy.
The BBC might as well be the media arm of the Labour Party
Propaganda Arm of the Liberal Elite. Which is why we junked our TV 20 years ago. Gets worse with every passing year.
“Ah yes science, one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” ——-Mark Twain. —-Jeez I really wish Mark Twain was around these days to humiliate this crowd of climate doomsters and their manipulated and adjusted data. Their phony graphs and their cherry picked facts. Their harassing of scientific journals that dare to publish anything remotely indicating there isn’t much in the way of a climate crisis at all, and their blaming of every single thing that happens as “likely due to the burning of fossil fuels”. ——-Who pays the piper calls the tune and it is sad to see that “science” has just become another government department.
Ah yes.
Our old chum Bob “fast fingers” Ward, with his super “Scientific” qualification of PhD in “Paleopiezometry” (failed).
His level of mendacity, incompetence and sheer malice makes even scum like Michael E (hockey-stick) Mann seem fractionally less egregious.
Some of us have been on to Bob Ward and his sinister employer for some time. Indeed, using libel laws has been a tactic of Grantham/Ward for some time, but it has long been the case that only the Guardian has much sympathy for Bob’s activities. He pops up on Sky News’ from time to time but he isn’t the most appealing of advocates.
Grantham is more interesting. His interest is very much in Biomass (destroying plants and trees in the fight against CO2), and that his wife is something of a green zealot and, er, photographer.
Indeed it has long been the case that it isn’t so much the billionaires that are so dangerous when it comes to the damage done by the promotion of eco-lunacy but their idiot wives, worse, ex-wives. After all it was Laurie David, ex-wife of Larry, who ‘produced’ Al Gore’s now risible ‘An Inconvenient Truth’…
Maybe DS should do an expose into ‘billionaires’ wives’
I guess she no longer photographs trees.
The BBC hails making the poor poorer. The true purpose of collectivism, socialism, communism is to hand more power to the state and create dependency.
“A similar ‘scientists’ stunt was pulled last month by Damian Carrington in the Guardian, who polled 400 so-called scientists and in an ocean of emotional guff concluded the world is heading towards a “semi dystopian” future.”
Well this Carrington quack was right on the last bit but he needs to be more assertive; he can drop the “semi.”
I hate these people.
Carrington etc are inadequate ppl who couldn’t repair a puncture on their bike but think they can reorder the energy grid/world. The true purpose of their actions is to offload their self hated and loathing on to everyone else.
If you are a scientist and don’t subscribe to any kind of alarmism you will never have the distinction of being classed as “distinguished”. You will be a “maverick”. A bit of an odd old chap due to retire to his bungalow looking over the Sussex County Cricket Ground where the sooner he gets the white hanky on his balding dome the better and let the “distinguished scientists” deal with the impending climate catastrophe that somehow requires no evidence but SSSSSHHHHHH. You don’t need evidence in Post Normal Science, all you need is a show of hands from a bunch of government funded data adjusters.
1,931 signatures of more qualified people saying “There is No Climate Emergency” at the World Climate Declaration
https://clintel.org
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WCD-240529.pdf
We control things on many levels that most aren’t aware of. The forces of human mood and mind do have a profound effect on the level of moisture in the atmosphere. But these people know nothing about this. Their postulates are essentially the opposite of the truth because they are ultimately predicated on human misery.
If Blairites (such as Cameron – Clegg) can run government policy on the basis of The End of History (Fukuyama) it is a small jump to running public policy on the basis all science has been done and nothing is left to learn.
Looks like I should have gone to
Barnard CastleSpecsavers before reading the names of the ‘climate scientists’. I could have sworn ‘Karen’ was the middle name of every one of them.The notion and audacity of subjecting the nation with such BS is reprehensible & who could have exposed these charlatans better then themselves
I work (aged 79) for a company that benefits from the EV push. Therefore I benefit. Exactly the same principle applies to the signatories.
As a trained scientist/engineer and with some experience IMHO there is no scince associated with climate change, particularly the forecasts for the next 75 years. However there are a lot of politics so an pushback against the climate narrative must be a political one, hence the letter pushing one way
If I push the other way, I may lose the benefit I receive. People vote with their pocket.
The green idiots who support this nonsense are best represented by this comment (on one anti comment that the BBC had removed):
“I agree they shouldn’t open comments on this topic. All you get are right wing science deniers shouting slogans and facile misconceptions. Reform are swimming in oil money. But you wouldn’t think that matters, I’m guessing?”
I bet Nigel wishes that Reform were swimming in oil money.
It’s funny how when you quote scientific research at these people they claim you are shouting slogans.
Ha ha ha hilarious. The BBC are the biggest comedy show these days.