On Monday, the Financial Times published a book review by Pilita Clark — the paper's Associate Editor who writes on “corporate life and climate change” — that opened with the following lament:
The UK is a G7 country with a famed civil service that has been delivering world-leading climate change policies for the best part of 20 years. So how could it be so bad at dealing with the floods, heatwaves and fires wreaking so much damage on its people and economy?
The four books under her approving gaze carried titles freighted with millennial dread. Reviewing them cursorily but approvingly, Clark concluded that "the state of the climate is disturbing for any parent today" and that "adults have much to learn from children, not least their moral clarity about a climate problem that will be the defining challenge of their lives". The salmon-pink newspaper, it seems, has extended its remit from capital markets and corporate earnings to the moral instruction of British parents.
One might be forgiven for reading this as satire. It is not. It is, rather, a characteristic specimen of what has become the dominant mode of climate journalism in the mainstream Western press: a seamless fusion of advocacy, emotional appeal and selective empiricism in which no counterevidence need intrude and no sceptical voice need apply. Like the BBC, which long ago decided that 'balance' on climate was a form of irresponsibility, the FT operates on the settled premise that the science is closed, the catastrophe is imminent
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.
Sorry stopped reading it, one its nonsense and two, do these writers feel if they write a thousand words, it makes things mote interesting?.not helped by the fact I seem to get the DS a day later????
The FT is simply propagandising on behalf of the WEF and the Globalists.
Useful information, appreciated: additional resources
The FT is just the same Guardianista rubbish on pink paper and in the days of the internet no longer needed for financial information.
The deep state is using climate change as a pretext to pursue the economy-wrecking Net Zero agenda and the UN’s dystopian Agenda 2030 for ulterior reasons which no sane person can possibly surmise. The FT is fully in thrall to the deep state and its goals. Hence the FT pushes climate change propaganda which they probably know is a pack of lies.
A nut job like her would be a great fit for the Guardian
I assume that the reason the author mentioned neo-Malthusians is because Darwin, in his seminal work, ridiculed Malthus for failing basic Maths. I think it was Happer who pointed out that a number of the people whose ideas he was criticising had failed basic physics. Plus ca change.
Many skeptics might say, “don’t worry, not many parents read the FT”. The effect of land management is evidently within their field of coverage, but as you point out, it is not just what the weather does, but how much you invest in and spend on that causes the difficulties. Cutting back on drainage works on the Somerset Levels might have looked good when we had a dry spell for a few years – but, well, you know what happened recently.
Similar to the collapse of the railway west of Exeter just over 12 years ago. No doubt (spot the sceptic here) they would have analysed why nothing had been done over the years to minimise the risks of what actually happened. Were we better off in reality, or not? Worth paying insurance or not, etc. That is the FT’s area of concern presumably.
Apart from the major 2014 failure, there have been other less serious similar snags: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/rail-services-resume-on-devon-coast-following-sea-wall-collapse-onto-tracks-during-storm-ingrid-26-01-2026/
It looked pretty rough last Saturday when I went along that route, although it was high tide. It didn’t stop some of the locals from walking and running along the footpath into Teignmouth, though!
(please click “read more” to enable paragraphs to appear)
Because the Financial Times is no longer an objective upmarket reliable source of information. It is now, like the rest of western media, the servant of the elites, and acts as their mouthpiece on the three major issues we have been facing:
1) Covid & the mRNA vaccines
2) The Russia/Ukraine war (where it publishes sheer lies & propaganda)
3) The climate non-science
You can tell the climate non-science is non-science on two simple grounds, for which you don’t need a science degree or any in-depth information.
1) The suppression of debate. Hundreds/thousands of scientists and climate experts are being silenced, bullied, threatened with job loss (and hence losing their family home), ridculed, slandered.
This is ANTI-SCIENCE. I have a Physics degree and know the history of our great advances in science particularly around 1880- 1930, when modern Physics made the great advances of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There was OPEN DEBATE, with many of Europe’s physicists OPPOSED to Quantum Mechanics as it was too “weird”.
Nobody was ostracised, silenced, or bullied. Everyone was LISTENED TO and their point of view taken on board. Papers & counter papers were published, so… Read more »
To answer the question posed by the title – it is simple: Money.
They are paid like everyone else to promote the religion.
Unfortunately, the issue is ‘settled science’ as far as the present day A-level Geography syllabus is concerned. My son’s recent exam paper asked the following question: ‘Evaluate the view that in order to mitigate climate change, reducing tourism is an essential first step.’
We’re a long way from the ox-bow lakes Central Business Districts of my youth.
‘Evaluate the view that in order to mitigate climate change, reducing tourism is an essential first step.’
How depressing. In many ways I am dreading having grandchildren, if that ever happens.
It’s more or less like asking “How best should we behave in order to please God?”.
At least invoking God is rational. Climate Religious BS is not.
I don’t know about rational. I put belief in God in a different category to belief in everything else, because everything else can at least in theory be proved or disproved, whereas God can’t – at least that’s how I see it. But I am not religious.
I guess my point was it is as you say a kind of religion and questioning it is considered heresy.
There are signs that the teaching of Climate Change on schools is being rolled back. We don’t get the Doncsster-On-Sea[1] material any more, and the modern textbooks have “Some scientists believe [that humans are altering the global climate]” rather than the earlier nonsense about a “consensus”.
[1] https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/climate-change-doncaster-lesson-1/2081708
It might be doing Doncaster a favour.
Does give the option of espousing the view it’s a load of nonsense (for zero marks)
Victorians used gruesome fairy tales to ‘educate’ their children.
Just saying.
heatwaves? floods?
May June 2026:
2 weeks of below average temperatures – some rain, but not that much
1 weeks of above average temperatures – no rain
2 weeks of below average temperatures – more rain than normal
Hardly a climate emergency.
Think of the children, LS.
June is making up for May in terms of rainfall. Ithought summer was when we get droughts!