Oh Guardian, thou unerring oracle of elite anguish and latte-laced righteousness, what have you conjured this time? A new revelation from the high temple of emotional climatology: climate change is no longer about physics, but “a crisis of justice”. Yes, really. The headline of Friederike Otto’s latest opus in the Guardian shrieks like an undergraduate activist with a bullhorn: “Climate change is not just a problem of physics but a crisis of justice.” Because when your models don’t model reality, and your predictions flop harder than a tofu burger at a Texas BBQ, simply pivot the narrative – from science to sociology.
When in Doubt, Moralise
The opening line is a tour de force in climate sanctimony:
“My research as a climate scientist is in attribution science. Together with my team, I analyse extreme weather events and answer the questions of whether, and to what extent, human-induced climate change has altered their frequency, intensity and duration.
In other words, Otto is in the business of telling us that every flood, drought or oddly warm Tuesday is your SUV’s fault. Attribution science, for the uninitiated, is the art of retroactively blaming the atmosphere’s every sneeze on Western industry, by way of probabilistic hand-waving wrapped in opaque jargon. What used to be called weather is now “anthropogenic signal detection”.
From Equations to Emotions
The article quickly departs from any pretence of physics, diving into the deep end of social justice with a straight face. Otto writes that early scientists didn’t address these questions not because the models were junk (which they were), but because of a sinister silence born from… wait for it… “colonialism”. I kid you not.
Why grapple with the pesky uncertainties of nonlinear dynamics when you can just call the jet stream racist?
Magical Thinking in the Church of Climate
As always, the Guardian isn’t content to merely spread alarmism – it needs to moralise. The piece does not present testable hypotheses or falsifiable predictions. No, it sermonises. It’s less a scientific article and more a secular encyclical. Climate policy, per Otto, must now revolve around “inequality”, “justice”, and probably crystal chakras and composting feelings too.
Why stop there? Let’s redefine thermodynamics as a tool of oppression. After all, who’s to say entropy isn’t just a white cis-male construct?
And Speaking of the Guardian…
Ah yes, the Guardian, the newspaper that treats every bout of drizzle as a sign of impending planetary doom and every economic policy as a chance to redistribute guilt. This is the same outlet that warns of “climate collapse” while offering 30% off annual subscriptions in the same breath.
It’s the news equivalent of a street preacher shouting about the apocalypse, then handing you a coupon for organic lentils.
Their entire climate section reads like a steampunk Bible study group – high on drama, low on data. They’re obsessed with “justice” not in the classical sense (you know, crime, evidence, courts), but in the modern performative sense, where “justice” means whatever the loudest graduate student in the room says it does.
Virtue First, Questions Never
So here we are, folks. In 2025, climate science – at least as defined by the Guardian and Dr Otto – is no longer about testable claims or rigorous scepticism. It’s a morality play. A political campaign. A never-ending guilt-trip wrapped in a rainbow flag and printed on recycled hemp paper.
And the next time a cyclone hits Bangladesh, don’t ask about air pressure or ENSO oscillations. Just nod solemnly and chant the new gospel: It’s a crisis of justice.
Because in the Church of Climate Wokeness, science has left the building – and feelings now run the thermostat.
This article was first published on Watts Up With That?
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.
Over to Dostoevsky…
“…Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.”
Same goes for voodoo-scientists.
If you listen to the early discussions of the bankers in the early 1990s you will hear that they state clearly that this has nothing to do with climate it is rather about reshaping the global economy according to certain principles, essentially equal serfdom for everyone in the world save them and their tiny cohort. So you either like their agenda or you don’t. Turns out that it isn’t as durable as they had hoped. We are seeing them mentally disintegrate in terms of the dissolution of this agenda and all the others that constitute their sick obsessions.
“Sir Alexander King admitted that his Club of Rome was never truly about solving pollution issues, but rather population control, which he admitted in a 1990 foreword to the Club of Rome’s blueprint for the 20th century, when he wrote:
‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself’. ”
Taken from this excellent article which I posted in the previous thread:
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-ghost-of-maurice-strong-haunts-canada-with-mark-carney-technocracy
Matthew Ehert at UK Column.
This is all well-known and well documented, the description of the nature of the agenda. So what is all this faux naivete? And if you really are that naive then Jesus Christ you wilol be eaten by times that are not shaped by our value systems.
Yawn.
The only explanation for mass importation of Muslims, deindustrialisation, and societal collapse is that it is intentional. It could be halted tomorrow if they had the will to do so. It’s blindingly obvious that we are the enemy. TPTB are on the back foot at the moment, but I don’t think for one second they have given up.
I agree completely. 👍
They’re still researching it?
I thought it was settled, 99.8% of scientists agreed and the issue was beyond question.
Climate scammers don’t even bother trying to hide their scamming.
This issue obfuscates what’s really going on with the weather which opens up discussions going to many levels. The relationship between the state of human souls and humidity for example. Weather warfare, aliens, astrotheology etc. But if you’re told that it is all about the CO2 then your mind will be inhibited from exploring other marvellous possibilities.
Err, right.
Thanks for that?
🙃
Is Otto really a scientist at the University of Oxford? I would say no, as she is employed at a Green Blob institute that pays to associate itself with the university. Similarly for the Grantham Institute at the University of London.
It is crazy you are looking to the wrong people for understanding. You should be looking to people with access to the realm of the spirit when it comes to understanding the weather and elementals. If you knew by direct spiritual apprehension of the weather then you would know and there wouldn’t be any doubt.
‘A never-ending guilt-trip wrapped in a rainbow flag and printed on recycled hemp paper.’
First world luxury problems, not enough scented bog rolls or terroir reintroduced rewilded beavers milk cheese
And then some swine with an attitude turns up with a few tattooed mates, a bazooka and a collecting box…..
Kipling told us the rest….
Climate Justice?
Yes! Let’s encourage and help DRC and so many other countries develop themselves and generate energy for all their citizens using their own natural resources. Let them develop industry to have enough wealth for clean water and food for their populations, enough food so that they’re not scrabbling after subsistence farming and have enough time to educate their children.
That would be justice. Let them develop the same benefits we’ve struggled for and developed for ourselves.
Let them become reciprocal trading partners for the whole world.
But oh no. You can’t have diesel Toyota Hilux trucks, you’ve got to have rechargeable Teslas even though you’ve no power to charge them
Yes, levelling down is the plan. It’ll be brought on by some sort of emergency, probably a financial collapse. The bean counters in charge will have secured their own positions though.
“Climate justice.”
Has anybody ever played this two word phrase back? This is such unbelievable nonsense. How on earth can the words climate and justice be linked together?
Talk about abusing the language.
Indeed, “Climate” and “Justice” do not, and should never, go together.
It is an example of the phenomenon (for which a name is needed, suggestions welcome) in which the addition of one word negates or inverts the meaning of another word.
For example:
1) “Doctor” and “Witch Doctor”
2) “Scientist” and “Climate Scientist”
(Acknowledging that these days there very little difference between Doctors – both medical and academic – and Witch Doctors)
Does she really believe this dribble, or is she just a nut job?
Definitely a nut-job.
It is most satisfying to read articles such as this, dealing with the Guardian’s regular practice of dross diffusion, and then to turn to that sorry rag, to see them begging for more cash so that they can continue their worthy efforts to collapse society.
How supposedly intelligent readers cannot see the massive disinformation organ for what it is truly amazes me.
The BBC televised the Easter service on Sunday from St Mary Redcliffe Church in Bristol. In his sermon the clergyman described this church as being progressive, inclusive and standing for ‘climate justice’.
Never mind the Christology when climate justice, along with progressivism generally, can promote a human philosophy; one that very much has state control at its centre. Never mind that Christ’s parables end in separation, not inclusion. But then the Church of England always had had two kings.
Additionally, as the preacher declared, this church regularly says prayers in different languages. In this service a woman and a man read out the intercessional prayer. The man speaking first in English followed by the woman in Arabic.
But was the woman’s version an identical translation of the man’s? When the man said ‘Jesus Christ’, the woman said ‘Allah’. Now the two – Jesus Christ and Allah – are not necessarily one and the same. They aren’t in other religions, and are not even in some versions of Christian theology. ‘Christ’ is a title with a very specific meaning, not a name.
Was this prayer modified in the Arabic language iteration to satisfy Islamic theology and practice? It is considered preferable to use the Arabic language when as a Muslim a person prays. If English is to be used by the worshipper it is to be used in conjunction with and alongside the Arabic language original. Transliteration – writing out words in Arabic as syllables without translation – being one method but wouldn’t have been possible in this church service.
What was this ‘inclusive’ church really doing with their two prayer leaders? The man and the woman were prayer leaders, and in Islam an Imam is a prayer leader.
Now the wheels are coming off the “Net Zero is essential to stop Global Boiling” narrative, they are pivoting to the REAL reason it is being implemented ….. which the UN admitted some time ago:
“‘Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth’
https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/