The world of climate science is in a terrible state. Riven with political activists claiming to be scientists, funded by green billionaires and state actors interested only in the Net Zero agenda, reported by blockhead mainstream journalists who believe science can be ‘settled’ – and increasingly being questioned by bored populations fed up with listening to year-after-year, decade-after-decade ‘Jim’ Dale-style claims of boiling and collapsing climates. That is why the recent paper published in Nature by Cambridge Professor Ulf Buntgen has sent shock waves through a heavily-corrupted climate scientific community. At one point, Buntgen referred to the “ongoing pseudo-scientific chase for record-breaking heatwaves and associated hydroclimatic extremes”. He argued that quasi-religious belief in, rather than the understanding of the complex causes and consequences of climate and environmental changes, “undermines academic principles”.
Professor Buntgen is not a sceptic of the idea that humans control the climate by burning hydrocarbons. It is unlikely he would be published in a major journal like Nature if he was. But he is worried about climate scientists becoming activists by failing to work from actual observations. He is also worried about activists who pretend to be scientists. An excellent example of this can be found in the recent Guardian report that portrayed some of the hysterical claims of 380 “top scientists”. Billed as the views of writers of recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, a suitable response might have been ‘spot the scientist’.
The Cambridge geography professor observes that there is a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, “and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action”. Where to start on this one? There is overwhelming evidence that almost any scientific finding that casts doubt on humans controlling the climate thermostat will be ignored, and if that is unsuccessful, traduced or erased from mainstream view. In extreme cases, and certainly if the findings get any publicity, it might be necessary to put a billionaire-funded ‘fact’ checker on the case. A Guardian journalist helped get a science paper, Alimonti et al, retracted from a major journal because it cast observational doubt on claims of a climate emergency. Google has banned its ads from a page showing accurate satellite temperature on the grounds of “unreliable and harmful claims” of global readings. Less than curiously, the readings from this source happen to be generally lower than those produced by heat-corrupted surface readings. The state-influenced BBC has refused to discuss any sceptical view of the anthropogenic science opinion since at least 2018. Meanwhile, a UN communications official states that the world body “owns” climate science, and the world should know it.
Protected by the political and media class, the well-funded arrogance is off the scale. Buntgen notes that activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of “moral legitimisation” for their movements, which can be radical and destructive, rather than rational and constructive. “Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority”, he says. The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory “is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public”, he added.
One well known activist who frequently claims ‘the science’ to shut down sceptical debate is the BBC broadcaster Chris Packham. Last year, he presented a number of Earth programmes that attempted to link past increases in carbon dioxide to rapid rises in temperature – all in the “terror” cause of drawing links with current and upcoming climate collapse. Alas, the ‘science’ shows that over 600 million years there is little or no link between rising CO2 and temperature. But Packham perfected the art of taking imprecise proxy data from the geological record – imprecise as in a margin of error of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years – and comparing it to accurate modern measurements. You can do that of course, but the BBC should surely be under an obligation to provide space for others to dispute the suggestions. No such obligation is evident, needless to say.
Buntgen finds it “misleading” when even prominent organisations, such as the IPCC, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2,000 and even 125,000 years. “The quality and quantity of available climate proxy records are merely too low to allow for a robust comparison of the observed annual temperature extremes in the 21st Century against reconstructed long-term climate means of the Holocene and before”, he observes. Happily, it didn’t stop Packham working back no less than 55 million years.
Dr. Matthew Wielicki was a highly-regarded geoscientist at the University of Alabama but he left academia last year noting that American universities, “are no longer places that embrace the freedom of exchanging ideas”. He said they would “punish” those who go against the narrative. Contributing to this, he noted, was the earth science communities silence on the false ‘climate emergency’ narrative. “Members of the community routinely discuss the mental health effects of climate catastrophism but dare not speak out”, he disclosed.
For his part, Buntgen suggests that the ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only “creates confusion” among politicians, stakeholders and the wide public, but also “diminishes academic credibility”.
Next time you see dopey crinklies attempting to smash the Magna Carta (avid listeners of BBC Radio 4, no doubt), consider that the ubiquitous ‘Daleification’ of climate catastrophe promotion might have gone just a bit too far.
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.
I’m glad you’ve closed down London Calling. Because your interlocutor has gradually transformed from a reasonable right wing dandy into some species of cultic fruitcake, complete with thin skin, it became impossible to sustain discussion. In the first place he responded with peevish insults to the first suggestion of disagreement; and worse, his “theories”, for want of a better word, boil down to a childish belief in a tribe of all powerful bogeymen. I stopped listening months ago for just this reason. Not only did JD reject the perfectly obvious point that there will never be a single explanation for all things; not only did he dismiss the role that accident plays in life, he wouldn’t even accept the perfectly proper point that in “woke” we are dealing with a tide of intellectual fashion among the whole educated class. No, for him it was bogeymen. At this point I have just heard the typically moderate and generous Young-point that JD is not mad, he’s just evangelical. Well, that sort of Christianity verges on madness in any case, does it not? Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox faith allows for science and reason – free-floating, late-comer’s amateur Protestantism amounts to a belief in UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. It also explains his appalling sympathy for Islam – among the deadliest enemies freedom has ever had. Finally, to Mr Dixon, no it is not an insult to be called an ethnic nationalist. Ethnic nationalism is there in the belief systems of Churchill and de Gaulle and is wholly distinct from the beliefs of their famous German antagonist.
Clearly there are at least twenty-six religious nuts who worship at the shrine of Little Jim and his fight against the all-powerful Bogeymen. They can’t seem to muster an argument between them. What a surprise!
Like all religious fruitcakes, anything that it is beyond his intellect to understand is ascribed to a god or gods.
This is true of religious fruitcakes but not true of the more rationally religious, for example Dr Johnson, who had little truck with efforts at “theodicy” and dismissed all certainty as to the particular intentions or interventions of God.
And he would certainly not have ascribed all our misfortunes to some ongoing cabal of human agents as it seems the “born again” James is happy to do.
Indeed, with his obsessive focus on particular individuals he is close to viewing them as supernatural powers; and worse, he sees them as involved in a conspiracy over centuries.
Here we meet the ultimate nonsense which mutters darkly about secret societies, Freemasons et al – really, little better than taking Dan Brown seriously. And this, I fear, is why he reacted in such a prickly fashion – or so I understand – to some phantom accusation of anti-Semitism, for that is the really nasty creature which lurks at the end of so many such “rabbit-holes” – and he knows it.
Happily, he is clearly resisting that particular temptation; but one wonders how long it will take to overcome his resistance? After all, a once rational individual now rejects opposition, ascribes every evil to a thousand year conspiracy, denies evolution, palaeontology, the routine precautions of due scepticism and in their place relies on childish, fairy-tale explanations with horrible antecedents and horrifying possibilities. In claiming to be down this “rabbit hole” he evinces a last, uncomfortable sense that he is losing touch with truth; is, perhaps, giving out a final distress signal in hopes that someone might rescue him.
This, ultimately, is why I stopped tuning in. He needs help.
I stopped listening to London Calling simply because the show notes told me in too great a detail who thought what about which topic, so there was no need to listen.
I continued listening to hear Toby calmly and logically dealing with the ever more extreme Delingpole outbursts. I quite like JD and although I tend to dismiss his theories, I found it interesting to listen to them.
Interesting? Surely it was embarrassing? Like listening in on a private session between shrink and fruitcake. As for liking the poor fruitcake, well – he was once likeable, in his downright, right-wing hedonist days. Now that he’s a particularly aggressive member of some sort of pensioners’ Christian Union, complete with American Bible-bashing, he must be quite ghastly to meet.
Like all religious fruitcakes, anything that it is beyond his intellect to understand is ascribed to a god or gods.
Richmond was the capital of the Southern states in the Civil War. The men North of Richmond are yankees and bankers etc
Anthony wasn’t saying he lived there – he’s in NC I think
Good listen and good restaurant dish!! I used to listen to London Calling from the beginning, so will miss friends trying to work stuff out but there was getting less discussion about what might be happening.
I feel more optimistic after listening thank you but I wonder if one of you could listen to JDs latest podcast with the nice Irish guy about covid but worrying if he is right !?
Tuning in next week !
The ad-lib of “Re-wolving the Guardian” was so good that you must make the film. Toby drooling over the Moonbot trans-wolf going through Owen Jones like butter shows Toby’s inner psychopath, the more sinister for his veneer of urbanity.
I might add that I walked my dogs for years among leafy NJ suburbs less than an hour from NYC, happily co-existing with occasional bears and coyotes. Coyotes are half-wolf in the Eastern US and the ones I saw looked as big as wolves. Picking ticks off the dogs was more trouble.
It is hardly surprising that the podcast failed. It is one thing to punctuate something compelling by advertisements but times have moved on and there is no pretending that things are normal anymore. Such a conceit runs contrary to evryone’s lived experience and so such a podcast just gets consigned to background noise like a dog barking in the back garden. I don’t give advice except to say that God hates a coward most of all.
La Proudman is a wank-stain on the fabric of humanity
I was thinking skid mark. Even a wankstain had a degree of potential at some point in its existence.
Sadly I have reached a point with several sets of friends with regard to views on issues like leaving the EU, Covid, Lockdowns, Masks, “Vaccines”, Net Zero, DIE (yes there are HR managers among my friends). With one group we have had to agree not to discuss political issues. Another group (predominantly career long public sector employees) I have let go because we cannot talk about anything much any more due to their deep immersion in their narrative, which is infuriating.
It’s nuclear Toby, just say new-clear, not Dubya’s mangled nu-cu-lar. And regarding the crazy plane lady Nick, you should probably watch this, it may be helpful:
https://youtu.be/pInk1rV2VEg
NEW PODCAST OUT FROM THE REAL NORMAL PODCAST!
We’re back on the airwaves talking about the ‘Bibby Stockholm’ and her massive hull…plus we’re picking the bones out of light fingered museum curators. We cover the awful story of Lucy Letby, whilst also chatting about the usual madness that swirls around the woke, namely Graham Linehan.
https://therealnormalpodcast.buzzsprout.com/1268768/13442825-ep-53-get-your-big-bibby-stockholm-s-out
PLUS SILLY SONGS you unfortunate proles!