Historically, the claim of consensus is the first refuge of the scoundrel; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.
Michael Crichton, PhD, MD, author, screenwriter and academic
Humans cause all or most of the changes in the climate by burning fossil fuel. We must stop using the most efficient fuel we have, one that supplies 85% of our energy needs, and sign up for a so-called Net Zero future. The rich will get richer, since they will control state-mandated transfers of once-productive capital into new untried technologies, and the poor will get poorer. Holidays, personal travel and energy will be rationed (for the masses), while meat-free diets will be the order of the day. There are disadvantages, admit the green, politically motivated zealots, but it has to be done. The Earth is on fire – the science is settled.
Except that it isn’t. The idea that humans are largely responsible for climate change is an unproven hypothesis. The claim that it is ‘settled science’ on which all specialists in the field agree is a political con. Over 40 years, climate models have produced wildly inaccurate warming forecasts that have never been right.
The political narrative of global warming got going in the 1980s, following the failure of the 1970s global cooling scare. The warming narrative had a good ride for 15 years, until the recent warming started to run out of steam. Over the last seven years, there has been a standstill in temperatures. This is part of what lies behind the recent rebranding of bad weather as ‘extreme’, and unscientific attempts to link solo events to long-term aggregate climate change. Record high temperatures among the jet aircraft at Heathrow, record “gusts” of wind off isolated sea cliffs – all are used to craft a political Armageddon narrative.
At the heart of the debate, or rather the public non-debate, is the role of carbon dioxide as a warming gas. CO2 does warm the planet and the Earth would be about 33°C cooler without it and the other greenhouse gases. But its warming properties become less effective as more of it enters the atmosphere. Doubling atmospheric CO2 does not double the warming – a point which the IPCC accepts. Climate models guess that such doubling causes global temperature to rise in a range from 1.5°C to 6°C. Recent scientific work suggests this estimate is way too high. The simple ‘settled’ science deduction that rising CO2 levels automatically lead to significantly higher temperatures fails to take much account of natural climatic variations. In addition, little cause and effect between CO2 and temperature can be seen in current, historical or geological records.
CO2, methane and ozone, along with the much more common water vapour, produce a greenhouse effect of reflecting heat back to the Earth only within certain bands on the infrared spectrum. This has led some scientists to suggest that CO2 becomes ‘saturated’ once it reaches a certain level. Most of the heat that is going to be trapped is already being radiated back by the CO2 molecules evenly distributed in the existing atmosphere.
It is fascinating science, but it is conducted away from mainstream media, most political circles and the Earth Sciences/Geography university departments. It is the last that seem to provide many of the vocal scientists promoting the ‘settled science’ narrative. Such ground-breaking work holds out the promise of a better understanding of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. Only a blinkered following of a political agenda can explain why it is ignored.
The idea that the science surrounding changes in the climate is settled goes back a long time. In 2006, the BBC ran a one day seminar in secret to decide on its future climate editorial policy. The meeting was crucial in plotting future editorial guidelines. According to the former Sunday Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker, the new guidelines “would allow it to make its coverage of any issues relating to climate change more actively partisan than ever”. Booker continued: “Its obligations to remain impartial could be put aside, it argued, on the grounds that the official orthodoxy was now so overwhelmingly accepted that any dissent from it could be dismissed as too insignificant to be worthy of notice.”
In 2013, John Cook came up with the suggestion that 97% of scientists believed that humans cause global warming. Mr. Cook is a green activist, who runs a site called Skeptical Science with the intriguing strapline: “Getting sceptical about global warming scepticism”. His notion was given a huge boost when Barack Obama tweeted that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. In fact the 97% figure, which is still widely quoted today, was quickly debunked. It was found that of the 12,000 abstracts rated, only 0.5%, or 65 papers, suggested that humans were responsible for more than 50% of global warming.
Since scientists differ widely in their view on the human contribution to climate change, the attempt to put a number on a so-called consensus is futile and meaningless. But it makes a good headline. Step forward Mark Lynas, with a recent raise on 97% to 99%. In fact, his study found only that 99% of scientists failed to explicitly quantify the effect humans were having on the climate.
Mr. Lynas has had a lively career in green activism and journalism, first coming to attention in 2001 when he threw a pie into the face of the sceptical climate economist, Bjørn Lomborg. He was behind the PR stunt in 2009 when the Government of the Maldives met under water to draw attention to rising sea levels. Happily, this is not a problem for the Maldives, since overall the islands have grown in recent years. In 2007 he wrote an article in the Guardian reporting on the possibility of global warming producing fuel air bombs caused by oceanic methane eruptions. These would be equivalent to 10,000 times the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, he claimed.
These days, Mr. Lynas is the Communications Strategist and Climate Lead for the Alliance for Science, a non-profit operation linked with Cornell University. Its primary source of funding is said to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – another case, it appears, of following the money to find the billionaires pushing their pet green narratives and causes.
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.
We can’t have it both ways though.
I’m not responsible in any way for Britain trading slaves a few hundred years ago. So, neither can I be proud of the brilliance of Shakespeare or Elgar.
If the misdeeds of our ancestors are no reflection on me then neither are their achievements.
It’s not a reflection of you. However that doesn’t mean you cannot honour the people who did extraordinary things to shape the direction of the country you where born in, nor should we erase the misdeads of others, lest we repeat the same mistakes. But in some form or another, the culture that we inherited from our ancestors shapes us whether we realise it or not.
Thats precisely the argument of those who throw the accusation of white privilege and inherent racism.
I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s what they keep throwing at white people.
Baffled by the downvotes.
I’m glad I live in England as it seems like a decent country, relatively speaking, and allows me to live a pleasant life in general, albeit things seem to be in overall decline now. But I am only “proud” of those of my personal achievements that have come through making effort and exercising self discipline – and even then I’m not at all sure that too much “pride” is healthy.
Surely one recognises both misdeeds and achievements past and present, and tries to avoid the misdeeds and aspire to similar achievement.
Perhaps whoever wrote that sentence didn’t really mean pride but simply celebrating what people generally agree to be good about a country.
It may be something to do with, if I may say so, a perception of a slightly ‘preachy’ tone?
That’s funny, because whenI hear Douglas Murray, that’s exactly rhe feeling I get.
In any case, I think it’s mostly due to the cognitive dissonance.
In any case it’s pure.logic. if you can be proud of your nation due to its past achievements then you can feel shame too. No amount of down votes is going to change that.
I’m unsure, like others, about how “proud” one should be.
I’m pleased ti be British and also pleased that my Grandfather ( who was killed when my father was only 1 year old) was an Anglo-Indian. Good old Raj.
I am well aware of things that should not have happened at numerous points in the past, but see absolutely no reason why I should feel “shame” about anything which happened long before I was born.
But if you think it appropriate in California to shovel half a million dollars of taxpayer’s money to anyone who has an ancestor who was a slave, should there not be an appropriate scheme that works in the opposite direction?
How much compensation should black Californian taxpayers stump up, for not having grown up like a Haitian or Liberian?
I can’t find any preachy tone, just an expression of a personal view accompanied with what seems like a logical argument.
“But I am only “proud” of those of my personal achievements that have come through making effort and exercising self discipline – and even then I’m not at all sure that too much “pride” is healthy.”
There is a degree of over-thinking going on here, or perhaps not enough.
Unfortunately tof although you state that you are proud of your personal achievements you fail to acknowledge that these are to some large degree a result of your heritage.
It is not just our genes which shape who we are but the history that comes through the generations and subtly influences how we currently live, feel and act.
Why on earth did Bliar set the ball rolling with unlimited immigration? Why have successive governments ramped it up? The reason is very simple – in order to undermine and indeed collapse the very idea of Britishness?
At the moment we are still defined as a people by our inherent Britishness in the same way that many long-standing nations are defined by acknowledged national characteristics – French, Germans, Dutch and so on.
Whether you like it or not the “pride”you feel now is derived in no small part from those who have lived and died before you in these islands.
We should learn from the apparent misdeeds of our ancestors and rightly and greatly celebrate their successes and achievements.
To assume that who and what we are now is simply down to our intelligence and inherent decency is hubris of the worst sort.
“No man is an island.”
Indeed. Of course I recognise that everything I achieve is made possible to differing degrees by what and who has gone before. I am thankful for that and I think feel as strongly as you do that English culture and European culture must be preserved. If you want to call that pride then I’m proud (certainly not ashamed) – but I take pride to mean you are in part taking personal credit for something and I can’t do that – as Stewart points out the other side of the coin is not feeling shame for things other people have done.
Anyway I think this is semantics and we are on the same page as far as what would like to see from the future and what sadly is likely to happen
While that may be true in a general, abstract sense, I think that my individual characteristics, the decisions I make on how to live my life and how I chose to act are a far, far bigger factor on my behaviour than whatever prior generations did or did not do. So what Shakespeare or Newton did hundreds of years ago is sort of irrelevant to my behaviour and nothing to be particularly proud of. Like TOF says, admire, for sure. But proud?
I’m not a big fan of national pride.and tribes in general. I think these notions are used to manipulate people and concentrate power. I understand people’s need to have a shared identity and sense of belonging, but at the level of the nation state in particular it comes at a steep price, in my view.
I know I’m in a minority on this.
I like this, and the picture’s awesome too. ”Real eyes realise real lies”. Once you’re awake you can’t go back to sleep, though many have been awake since the start.
”They know this was never about health.
They know there is a bigger agenda playing out.
They know their history, their psychology and can read journal articles.
They know that all the tools which enabled this are still in place and are being strengthened as others move on.
They know Dr Bloomfield has been representing NZ at WHO meetings to contribute to this strengthening.
They know people are still dying and being harmed by what has been done.
They know that until the harm is acknowledged, treatments can’t be considered, nor justice sought, and the world can’t “move on”.
They know that there will be ongoing ramifications for years, if not for decades or generations to come.
They know that worldwide all-cause mortality is rising, birth rates are falling and something is killing us off.
They know that the people who have colluded to cause this damage and death are still in positions of authority and knew what they were doing.
They know there is more to come, and it is only a matter of time before the next ‘pandemic’ is declared.”
https://nzdsos.com/anti-vaxxers-move-on/
Excellent …. thanks for posting
Did you write that Mogs , it’s spot on I’m afraid
, I listened to the Delingpod & James is 100% behind Andrew Bridgen while Toby adds a few nuance’s about AB to dilute his bang on message ( which I guess he has to ) however AB,s info is correct ! I would stake my life on it !!
Thanks for the link Mogs. Excellent.
Our Prof Fenton facing the John Campbell treatment. Too much truth backed up by data on YT will do that. Silence those truth-spreaders, they’re a public menace and risk screwing up our evil plans!
”Perhaps if the voices of us “conspiracy theorists” with our “bizarre claims” (at the start of 2021) that the vaccines could kill had not been censored, while claims that the vaccines were 100% effective were widely promoted, then the thousands of deaths and injuries from the vaccines would have been avoided. And people like Lisa Shaw, Michelle Barlow, Zion, and Stephen Wright – none of whom had any medical need to take his vaccine – would still be alive today.”
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/when-real-misinformation-kills
“The Prime Minister set out plans to make it easier for British farmers to diversify their incomes, such as through setting up farm shops on their land,”
So when we take your farm off you, you’ll have so kind of income at least!
Farm shops selling electricity from solar panels and edible insects?
re:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12085321/Expanding-ULEZ-scheme-wont-effect-slashing-lung-cancer-rates-TfLs-analysis-states.html
Every time the person who identifies as the leader of the Labour Party opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it. What a liability he and his Party are.
How will imposing
penaltiessurcharges on people who just want to live their life, respectfully and lawfully, in relative peace improve health?Will there be a financial sliding scale
penaltysurcharge imposed – in the interests of health and, oh yes, that misbegotten aim of ‘not overwhelming’ the ‘beloved’ NHS – on every day to day activity?Just imagine, a
penaltysurcharge just to enter an ale house – £7.25 anyone?Or, entering a fast food venue – is £4.75
penaltysurcharge reasonable?Don’t even think of entering a sweet shop – an automatic
penaltysurcharge of £2.65 may be the going rate!Of course, we should all be
forcedcoerced and manipulated to pay thepenaltiessurcharges in order to improve everyone’s health and to avoid being labelled selfish and anti- good health.Remember that famous saying:
’No one is safe until everyone is safe.’
An excellent post. Spot on. Kneel is a disaster waiting to happen.
And of course with Ranting as his number two what could go wrong?
Thanks hp
The petitions committee have requested the Government respond again to the petition ‘Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005’ only this time directly address the request of the petition: –
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635904
Who defines truth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQry8hZQu0I published by JC, around 5 1/2 minutes.
Yesterday evening Todd Callender & Dr Theresa Long were the guest speakers at the MD4CE meeting. We were updated on a court case Todd filed, which so far hasn’t been thrown out because it has a constitutional element. Dr Long updated us about the impact of the mandates on the health of previously fit & healthy young men & women & the consequences of the policies of the last few years on the military itself.
What is indisputable is the personal toll that diagnosing & attempting to treat these serving personnel is having on Dr Long. Her compassion shines brightly.
The recording of the meeting can be viewed here: https://rumble.com/user/cbkovess
Todd & a group of like minded individuals has bought CloutHub, meaning that it is a truly free speech social media platform & welcomes members with every opinion which will not be censored.
You can sign up for an account here: https://app.clouthub.com/#/onboarding/signup/nameform
If you want to, you can find me there.
Plus Ca Change!!?
(the ‘official’ announcement)….
”Today, President Biden announced his intent to nominate Dr. Monica Bertagnolli as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s preeminent biomedical research organization. Dr. Bertagnolli is a world-renowned surgical oncologist, cancer researcher, educator, and physician-leader who has the vision and leadership needed to deliver on NIH’s mission to seek fundamental knowledge and promote human health.”
…this is the same Dr who tweeted in October 2020….”We all love Nobel prediction season….but I know who deserves the Peace Prize our colleague Tony Fauci..he’s been awesome for a long time….”
or…June 2021….tweeted..,.”we can protect people with weakened immunity if everyone else gets vaccinated…”
She was a strong proponent of Public Health Establishments efforts to censor covid ‘misinformation’ …. praising the then Surgeon General, Murthy , who at the time was demanding tech companies should share data on misinformation offenders’….
…and the cherry on the cake…
@TheChiefNerd
Biden plans to nominate Dr. Monica Bertagnolli as the new head of the NIH.
From 2015-2021, Bertagnolli received more than 116 grants from Pfizer, totaling $290.8 million. This amount made up 89% of all her research grants.
LOL…I’m shocked I tell you shocked!!!
“From 2015-2021, Bertagnolli received more than 116 grants from Pfizer, totaling $290.8 million. This amount made up 89% of all her research grants.”
Pfizer must be delighted at this return on their investment.
VonDer liar at the European Commission two days ago….…
”the report shows that a growth model centred on fossil fuels is simply obsolete”
…and they clap!!?
we are doomed!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiBMKpaXIdE
Fond er lying ‘s speech is just that – packed full of lies. It is essentially the Communist Manifesto updated and rewritten for the 21st century.
Apparently Europe is to become a “climate neutral continent.” I tend to believe that if our climate is taken away we will all be dead. And wtf is “climate neutral?”
The speech, or Manifesto pronouncement is a staggeringly grotesque parody of real life and as stated above literally packed full of lies :
“Last year in Europe we produced more energy from unreliables than we have ever produced from fossil fuels.”
Is that right fond er lying? Could I see your sums?
Actually the complete lack of shame and self-awareness is horrific to behold.
Guetzkow
@joshg99
Interesting Twitter thread from Josh Guetzkow…..
“Was the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine clinical trial a bait-and-switch?
There were >44,000 people in the trial, but only ~250 of them were given doses made with a new manufacturing method (‘process 2’) that was used to make enough doses to sell around the world.
To our knowledge, the safety and efficacy comparison they planned to do with those 250 subjects has never been published and has not been released in the FOIA’d documents that Pfizer submitted to the FDA. Was the comparison ever done? Where are the results?
Keep in mind that one of the major changes in the new production process was using bacterial cDNA to upscale production of mRNA. @Kevin_McKernan’s
analysis of vaccine vials found unacceptably high levels of leftover bacterial DNA.
Pfizer’s 6-month report to the FDA doesn’t include the process 2 comparison, but it does show a significantly higher serious adverse event rate in placebo subjects after they were given the vaccine compared to the original vaccine group, “as expected.” Why was it expected?
In addition, a recent Danish study found significant variability in the rate of serious adverse events across 52 different lots of Comirnaty. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998
Business of the House 11/05: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1YS9TLdGE&list=WL&index=4 Might have been mentioned before – about a minute or so; how to say “no”, without actually saying so, a cynic might say.
Nationalism has earned itself a bad repute after the behaviour of the European powers (not just Germany) over the last couple of centuries. But it does not follow that the French or the Germans, the English or the Spanish, always have to be at each others´ throats any more than we would expect siblings to be. We are a gregarious species and, after families then tribes, nations come next, usually defined by a common language. As with siblings, sometimes there´s a flare-up at puberty before we reach the sanity of adulthood and maybe the 19th/20th centuries were the puberties of nation states.
It looks as though the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, SouthAfrica) have realized this but America remains stuck in adolescence wanting to boss the world of its fellow nations around. And the European nations are behaving like minnows threatened by a an immature, aggressive gang-leader. Each nation should grow up and, while taking pride in its culture, abandon violence as a means of settling disputes with other nations.
Contrary to the globalists´ pretensions, humans need families, tribes, nations: they are the natural evolution of societies and, despite the hiccups of national development, we should now be able to manage a nation´s growth with pride in its culture and achievements but with humility and manners in its dealings with other nations. We can´t get rid of nations: it goes against human evolution and anyone with experience will tell you it´s futile to fight against nature.