The Financial Times reported on Good Friday that “more than 65 leading UK scientists” had signed an open letter, published as a Google Doc, urging the Government to abandon new North Sea oil and gas drilling in favour of renewables. "Here is the scientific establishment speaking with one voice," the FT tells us, warning against the supposed folly of extracting what remains of Britain’s hydrocarbon resources and to choose renewables that, according to the scientist-signatories, provide both energy security and “cheaper solutions [that] we have already, that we know work”.
Catherine McBride OBE is the co-author of the recently published report for the Great British Business Council on Britain’s climate policy-induced de-industrialisation and a plan to reverse it. Also on Good Friday she published a Substack article on X titled 'What the Greens, most MPs and the FT don’t understand about the North Sea oil and gas'.
To point out that the “FT is nothing more than the Guardian with stock prices these days”, a “once mighty publications fallen into the abyss of wokery” would be only to shoot the messenger bearing the familiar pink newsprint. Let’s now turn to the message itself, lest one stand accused of employing ad hominem tactics.
What the so-called 'consensus' scientists say
The open letter from the 65 "scientists" declares with solemn authority: “Extracting North Sea fossil fuels will threaten lives and livelihoods.” It asserts that “around 90% of North Sea oil and gas has already been extracted”, that
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
Red Ed’s lucrative future career in the Global Eco Quangocracy relies on him “showing climate leadership” with OUR energy security and OUR money.
Just like Alok Sharma.
Could we not condense these articles?, my brain simply stops taking all this waffle in, why are climate articles so long?, its basically saying nothing about nothing, but going the long route round it. We all know scientists?, will say anything they are paid to say, and that its all a load of tosh!.
Take a leaf out of academic papers – an abstract at the head summarises the article and conclusions are drawn at the end. It’s then up to the reader whether they want to read the rest of the text.
The little Irish goblin was on Martin Daubney’s show this afternoon. I wonder which Far Left bunch fund him? At least Dim Dale is still absent from GB News.
choose renewables that, according to the scientist-signatories, provide both energy security and “cheaper solutions [that] we have already, that we know work”.
Ah, yes, cue the COVID-era argument that we should stick to proven infection control measures known to work like mask mandates and social distancing instead of trying some new and radical like letting people socialise without masks in whichever ways they want.
Same pattern: The people who want to fool others to follow them along on their unworkable and radically-different-from established-wisdom path present their revolution as the conservative and safe choice while they claim that what used to be called normality and was known to work well for centuries would actually be unproven and radically new.
Considering the structural similarity, it seems highly probable that the same set or kind of people are behind both statements.
NB: Something like this is easier to recognize than to put into words. But I thought I should make the attempt.
It’s bit like 65 Catholic bishops saying we’ve all go to church on Sunday or we’ll be damned. Of course they would – their jobs depend on it. Self preservation is a powerful instinct.
The more we invest in “cheap” renewables, the more expensive our energy becomes. Odd that.
Leading scientists say that you must be wrong about this. Energy bills are inflated by European CO₂ emissions and the only way to bring energy prices down is to reduce these. Otherwise, a point may tip in the near future and Britain will end up being boiled frozen.
Nevermind that this makes no sense, just believe in the right side of history!
The silver lining is that the oil and gas reserves aren’t disappearing, so they can be extracted in the future when the religion is seen for what it is.
Published a couple if days late by the look of it…
So the FT’s new role is as a useful idiot.
A globalist rag, has been for years.
The FT is the mouthpiece of the globalist cartel.
No surprise.
in what sense is 65 scientists out of the thousands of scientists in the UK “one voice”. And as on open letter it’s a self selecting sample – 100% of the 65 scientists that agreed to sign the letter believe it.
You could equally say “a tiny minority of scientists say no to North Sea oil”
“Leading Scientists” ——–This is the kind of thing you see in Working Men’s Social Clubs on posters for the Cabaret Artists coming soon ——They will have on them “Top Recording Artist” or “Britain’s Best Ventriloquist” etc etc. ——The whole idea behind using this term “Leading Scientists” is to convince the public that since all “Top Scientists” agree then so should they. It also tries to make it seem that you are not a “Leading Scientist” if you don’t agree with the current orthodoxy.
A bit like the TV show I’m A Celebrity which in my case is more like ‘who the F*ck are you?’.
The FT is the mouthpiece of the British Deep State which is pushing the climate change hoax and Net Zero as part of a nefarious, treasonous ulterior agenda.
The “British Deep State ” has many mouth pieces. The FT, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph (sorry DS, but it is..), The Mail, The Mirror, The Sun, The Express.
Basically al the newspapers, all the radios, all the TVs – except perhaps GB News.
The one thing they don’t control – yet – is social media and the Internet. But they’re working on it.
You need to make the point of mentioning Catherine MacBride clear. It took me a second read to realise she was against such lunacy.
Death throws of a dying religion, interestingly I had a little quizzing session with Google AI on north sea reserves, and the 90% claim is total BS.
By known reserves its about 70% exploited, and admitted there might be more then double the known reserves unexplored.
I also subscribe to the abiotic oil hypothesis and as such the wells may be gradually refilling, though likely not fast enough to keep up.
Oil, gas are ABIOTIC. Self replenishing. Not created from ‘fossil stones’ or ‘devonian algae’.
Hydrocarbons are made at the core and mantle.
A scientifc fact known for 100 years.
But the faux ‘scientists’ – the group of ’65’ – would not know that simple truth.
Scientism – a religion of state propaganda and fake-science – is what they push – not real ‘science’ or reality.
It used to 99% of scientists.
Now it looks like we are down to 65.
Not 65% …65 scientists.
Still, it will be repeated by every establishment controlled media outlet and the unthinking masses will hear the BS one more time, delaying that little bit more the end of the NetZero death cult.
The propagandist realises that it is important to keep convincing the public that every political agenda is supported by Science. Wheeling out all the “Top Scientists” means that ordinary people are reluctant to question public policy as scientists know much more than they do and that government are correctly only following scientific advice. ——But ofcourse matters of science are not decided by a show of hands. It is Politics that is.
Hands up anyone who recognises the name of anyone of these leading climate “scientists” and who is not married to one of them.
We could ask who is funding these $cientists. But I think we know the answer to that.
First name George, of Hungarian extraction?