Stand by for another bout of ‘Hottest Year Evah’ stories as the mainstream media pursues its campaign to induce mass climate psychosis and prepare the ground for the oncoming Net Zero catastrophe. Alas, enjoy it only a little while longer since this story may have to be retired after putting in such a sterling propaganda shift. Global temperatures are falling like a stone, while the oceans are cooling at a remarkably rapid rate. In the U.K., the year is likely to show a second annual temperature fall since the alleged ‘record’ year in 2022.
Only last May, Matt McGrath and Justin Rowlatt at the BBC were claiming that “fuelled by climate change” the world’s oceans had broken temperature records every single day over the past year. Planet-warming gases were said to be “mostly to blame”. Three days were singled out when the previous highs were beaten by 0.34°C. Inexplicably, the story, a matter it might be thought of some ongoing concern, was not followed up. The graph below, compiled from data supplied by the U.S. weather service NOAA, might help explain why.
Over a period of just a few months after the article was written, the global sea temperature over a large area of the world’s oceans has shown a dramatic reduction of 0.5°C. It is now back to the level seen in 2015. Consider what that means. Two years of relentless scare mongering about uncontrolled ocean warming from UN chief Antonio ‘boiling’ Guterres to media climate comedy turn Jim “jail the deniers” Dale has been suddenly thrown onto the ever-expanding scrapheap of failed climate scares. Further temperature reductions are highly likely in the next few months, particularly if a natural La Nina cooling variation develops as expected. In the Pacific, temperature anomalies in the Nino areas are now in negative territory. This fact and the graph above also signals an end to much of the twaddle written by the Guardian. Before we move on and reclaim sanity, who can forget this bilge from its environment editor Damian Carrington: “‘Astonishing’ ocean temperatures in 2023 supercharged ‘freak’ weather around the world as the climate crisis continued to intensify.”
Land temperatures are also falling with the UAH satellite record recently showing some significant monthly falls. Except for satellites accurately measuring the atmosphere near the Earth, we must treat most land surface temperature numbers with caution if not cynicism given how much we have recently discovered about urban heat corruption, invented data, retrospective adjustments and scandalously lax station siting policies. Nevertheless, it would appear that land temperatures are starting to fall and cooler oceans will hasten this process.
The last couple of years have seen a temperature spike and some scientists have sought to provide explanations. A recent paper from the EU weather service Copernicus argued that the warming spike was driven by a strong naturally occurring El Nino. This natural variation originates in the Pacific and transfers heat around the globe affecting weather patterns and temperatures. Interestingly, Copernicus noted that the 0.29°C spike was not unprecedented in the observation record since a slightly larger rise occurred in 1976-77. Other suggestions to explain the short temperature spike include recent reductions in atmospheric particulates caused by cleaner marine fuels, increased solar activity and the 2022 Hunga Tonga volcanic boost to water vapour in the upper atmosphere. Meanwhile, a new paper published this month in Science states that warming since 2013 and the spike in 2023 was helped by a reduction in cloud cover. This meant that more solar radiation reached the Earth’s surface.
What this latest episode of climate hysteria shows is that despite vast amounts of computer power and a huge pool of money, most climate science is stuck in a ‘settled’ dark age. Any departure from a climatic norm is seen by activist scientists and their faithful media messengers as a linear progression to Armageddon. The role of natural variation is constantly downplayed, scientists who depart from the ‘settled’ narrative of humans controlling the climate thermostat are cancelled while press-released pseudoscience is disseminated to persuade unquestioning journalists to attribute individual weather events to humans. All the while the Net Zero zealots prepare their battleplans to command and control every aspect of human existence. One such potential strike is currently passing through the British Parliament in the form of a private member’s bill that appears to have the support of almost a third of the House of Commons. Recently in the Daily Sceptic, Paul Homewood presented a worrying analysis of the hideous proposals contained in the Climate and Nature Bill. He concluded:
Net Zero is already doing great harm, but if this bill becomes law, the country will be unrecognisable in 10 years’ time. There will be energy and food shortages, industry will be decimated, private transport and foreign holidays a thing of the past. What we take for granted today will be unaffordable for most. And there will be nothing we can do about it.
Want to know why you have been fed a diet of runaway temperatures and boiling oceans of late? Look no further than the current antics of virtuous clueless fools indulging their luxury middle-class beliefs while determined to pursue a collectivist agenda whatever the human cost.
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.
More delusional reporting about how the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer’s policies have a significant bearing on the cost of UK debt.
The UK is already bankrupt. Like most countries with a bloated overbearing state.
I’m not defending Rachel Reeves or any politician, but some minor policies which represent a drop in our ocean of debt is what wrecked our economy.
That should be “isn’t what wrecked our economy”
My take on the matter:
1.) Any reasonable market analyst or investor must have had strong suspicions about a Labour government anyway, as historically every single Labour government left the economy in worse shape than is had been before they took over.
2.) But they gave Starmer’s government the benefit of doubt. Maybe this time it will be different. You never know.
3.) By now they have realized that their suspicions were well founded, Labour haven’t got a clue and Rachel from Accounts is indeed incompetent.
4.) Borrowing cost up, pound devalued as a result.
Liz Truss may have been a careless driver but was never given a chance to improve. Whereas Rachel Reeves is totally reckless behind the wheel. Her licence to kill our economy should be immediately withdrawn with a life ban.
Rubbish.
Reeves is deliberately trashing the economy, targeting those who Labour hates.
Truss would have been the best Tory PM in 14 years, except she went too fast, too soon and was mugged by the blob. They couldn’t have her fracking, ending ECHR, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, lowering taxes.
Listen to her recent interviews and she, for my money, is leading the charge against the blob that is the real enemy within. She understands and explains how we need a people’s movement, properly led and focused on the 5th Column.
This naive reporting angers me, to be honest.
I agree. In fact this is typical pseudo-journalism. Kate Andrews seeks to make a thesis out of a very straightforward bit of politics, not economics just vicious politics.
Rachel from accounts is acting under orders and those orders are to destroy the British economy and its people. Andrews hasn’t worked this out yet and has sought a hi-brow explanation. The reality is she hasn’t got a scooby and is talking nonsense.
She works for Gove. That’s all you need to know.
Good point.
What was unknown at the time of the Truss budget was that the pensions industry had decided to play casino games with the money in the pension schemes by using LDIs. The Bank of England also neglected to inform Truss or Kwarteng that they selling off a tranche of QE bonds when the budget was announced in what could be seen as a deliberate act of sabotage.
Rachel from Accounts had fucked up all on her own and delivered mortgage rates higher than Truss did.
Let’s not forget that the “necessary intervention” to shore up the LDI pension scheme included the Bank of England’s own pension scheme.
I’m sure the “intervention” was completely necessary and nothing to do with that
That’s more like it.
Interesting (to me) that the thesis in the article alleges that ‘Rachel Reeves is Making the Same Mistake as Liz Truss‘
Surely a more valid comparison would be between Truss and Starmer – what with them both being PM? Or between Kwarteng and Reeves.
I think Starmer is being let off too lightly on the fiscal incompetence argument.
I do not believe there is “fiscal incompetence.” It is inconceivable that so many ministers and civil servants could be acting in a manner so patently fiscally incontinent. They are acting under orders and those orders are to destroy the economy and thus the nation. Nothing these days is as it seems.
I stopped my Spectator subscription because of this person. Needless to say I did not waste my time reading the article.
I suspect that the exchange rate plays more of a role than is discussed here. The govt wants to repay loans in pounds, but why would an investor want to have pounds? The govt is trashing the productive part of the economy, via unnecessary increases in energy prices, taxes, and regulations.
What use will a pound be in 5 years time?
Why would they want to “finance the transition” when “the transition£ is clearly going to destroy our economy since it’s intended to outsource all manufacturing and ensure we have the most expensive energy on the planet?
If the markets (in 22) were mainly reacting to the government’s plan to subsidise energy costs, why didn’t they react two weeks earlier when the announcement was actually made and why didn’t the enormous cost of lockdowns create any panic?
A very simplistic assessment.
Truss’ budget was a lukewarm centrist plan with a strong empirical basis. The energy subsidy was ill advised but despite her plan being thrown out the energy subsidy continued as did money printing and currency devaluation. Furthermore the continuing vast green energy subsidies still continue despite the high debt and low productivity of the UK. The article fails to grasp deeper problems.