Today we publish further exclusive extracts from Chris Morrison’s explosive new book that is shooting up the bestseller charts and sending shockwaves through both the ‘settled’ climate science community and the hard-Left promoters of the wicked Net Zero lunacy.
Chapter 3: UK Met Office
Those who wonder how low scientific integrity can go at the UK Met Office must continue to wonder. Surely by now it would have withdrawn its 2018 UK Climate Projections (UKCP18) report when it used only a RCP8.5 computer pathway to suggest UK summer temperatures could rise 5.1°C by 2070. Preferably with the fulsome apology for all the harm and concern caused after the IPCC ruled the notorious pathway was “implausible”. No chance. In fact, it seems to be doubling down.
The glorious 2026 summer in the UK was just too good a chance for the state-funded meteorologist not to promote weather for the Net Zero cause. “Embarrassingly duped by activists,” was science journalist Matt Ridley’s recent comment, and who can dispute his opinion. In late June, the Met Office produced a short clip showing how it imagined a weather forecast would look in 2056.
The broadcast was said to use a “plausible scenario” showing temperatures reaching 45°C in 30 years’ time, along with nine consecutive days where 40°C was recorded somewhere in England. Not bad going considering the only time the temperature has edged over 40°C in England was in July 2022 alongside the runway at RAF Coningsby when it seems Typhoon jets were landing. “This scenario is not a forecast of a specific event, but a scientifically plausible illustration designed to help us understand how risks could change as the climate warms,” informed the Met Office. By using Met Office climate projections… “it is a stark realisation to see the maximum temperature reach 45°C”, added the operation’s Chief Scientist Professor Stephen Belcher.
What a load of old bull. Although the Met Office does not specifically identify where the projections came from, they are remarkably similar to UKCP18, a report that should be lying in the bin and not continuing to scare the living daylights out of the general population. The imagined weather forecast was nothing less than shameful agitprop.
Chapter 5: Climate Clots and Comedians
Where to start?
Right at the beginning of the great climate hysteria, a former public school boy and BBC employee was full of newly discovered truths that the world was on the verge of an environmental catastrophe. Inevitably, a home at the Guardian soon beckoned where he told readers in July 1999 that “global warming meant that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse”. The global “meltdown” was said to have begun. “Long predicted and long denied, the effects of climate change are arriving faster than even the gloomiest prophets expected,” he preached. Always ahead of his time, such sentiments of fast impending doom became standard slop for almost every activist seeking to whip up tears and fears for the future of Planet Earth. The Right Charlie obviously took note in 2009 when he gave the world 96 months before the eco fairies took it all away.
Of course, our long-time hectoring hero is George Monbiot. In 1999, he wrote that Arctic ecosystems were collapsing, the melting ice was wiping out the feeding grounds of whales and walruses, while polar bears and seal populations appear to have halved. “Appear” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the story. These days it is a tad more accurate to say that polar bear numbers appear to be at record levels.
Like many extreme activists back in the day, Monbiot had yet to learn the lesson to keep actual dates out of predictions of impending doom. Explaining that I might have got the year wrong for the Day of Judgement never did much for the credibility of the Jeremiah as he sheepishly led followers down the mountain. “The imminent total destruction of the world’s coral reefs is not a scare story but a fact,” Monbiot reported in June 1999. Thankfully, nobody told the corals, which have been around for hundreds of millions of years surviving through almost every change in the climate imaginable. For the last five years, corals on the Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral collection in the world, have been at all-time highs since detailed observations began nearly 50 years ago. Monbiot seems clueless about Nature. Corals can obviously withstand changes in sea surface temperatures, atmospheric storms and attack from other creatures.
Another article that has not worn well was written in December 2002, when Monbiot suggested that within as little as 10 years, “the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals, or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both”. Of course it did do both, helped by a subsequent 10% growth in global vegetation boosted by extra atmospheric supplies of hydrocarbon-produced CO2. Generally, Monbiot does not seem very keen on farming, claiming in July 2022 that we needed to switch out of it in favour of some ghastly factory processed muck. Human kibble, anyone.
These days Our George has aged and a Messiah complex seems to have taken hold. He still draws an adoring crowd in the usual ‘progressive’ echo chambers, but his closed mind and increasingly neo-Malthusian attachment to Net Zero is starting to catch up with him. He has not had to seriously debate his implausible claims for years, at least since he added his name to the hilarious 2018 Guardian letter which, with stupendous pomposity, stated that he and other signatories would no longer “lend their credibility” to debate over whether human-triggered climate change is real. Among other giants of broadcast media declaring that they had no further interest in the time-honoured process of debating conflicting scientific opinions were Jonathan Porritt, Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and Mark Maslin.
Like most hardcore activists, Monbiot has fled Twitter, now X under Elon Musk’s control, seemingly horrified by the unwelcome outbreak of free speech. In a long rambling goodbye to his half a million followers, he observed that intelligent conversation had been drowned out by a “tsunami of stupidity”.
The less charitable might conclude that there are only so many times a man can put up with being called a bit of a berk. …
When politics and science clash, the BBC is one of the first to kick the scientific process of relentless inquiry into touch. During the Covid pandemic, its reporting was abysmal. The dangers of the virus were relentlessly overhyped, junk computer models were given an undeserved prominence, while alternative medical views were ruthlessly suppressed. Climate science is a different subject, but the playbook is the same.
In January 2006, Roger Harrabin, the BBC chief climate activist at the time, held a one-day seminar to discuss how broadcasters should report on climate change. It was attended by 28 senior BBC executives and editors along with a number of invited climate catastrophising sympathisers. The meeting was kept secret for years, but it was crucial in plotting future editorial guidelines. The late Christopher Booker, a leading climate sceptic writer at the time, commented on the meeting’s agreed guidelines: “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.”
How many millions have died down the ages when some tinpot dictator, conquering general, cult leader or local mafia chief first pinned that type of notice up in the public square.
But a few pesky free speech voices did manage to get on air in the following years, so in 2018 Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s head of news, cracked down hard on all remaining dissent. Staff were told that climate science should not be presented as requiring balance from opposing viewpoints. Anyone disputing the ‘consensus’ around climate science was effectively banned from the BBC.
The result of the banning order has been appalling. As we have seen, the “implausible” ruling from the IPCC has junked much of its reporting on climate science over 15 years. A failure to inquire, debate and follow the scientific process condemned the BBC to being just another useful idiot promoting a Net Zero fantasy. …
For years, Bob Ward tied climate and Net Zero sceptical journalists up with pettifogging complaints to various UK media regulatory bodies. It is doubtful if anyone was any the wiser after his blubbings to the Beak, but of course for the writers involved and their employers, the lengthy process of having to deal with his whining was the real punishment. Ward works out of the Net Zero activist nest at the London School of Economics known as the Grantham Institute. Both the academic department and Ward’s own salary depend on the largesse of billionaire green investor Jeremy Grantham. These days the scope for regulatory mischief has diminished with free speech and sceptical commentary having moved into the less regulated social media environment.
Ward’s great shtick is a claim to follow the science. As a constant presence on mainstream media, he rails against “deniers” who he claims fail to look at the data. One must not be too unkind, but it seems his own writings and broadcasts rarely extend to actually debating his understanding of the complex subject. In fact, it might even be wondered if he is able to identify a climate scientist.
Ahead of the British General Election in July 2024, an open letter to all politicians called for an ambitious and accelerated programme of climate policies. Signed by 408 climate activists, the BBC hailed it “the most distinguished“ of the country’s scientists. Ward, who organised the petition, posted on X: “Be ambitious on climate, scientists urge parties.”
Scientists you say. The first ‘scientist’ in the alphabetical list was an Associate Professor of Accounting, the second was a geographer specialising in “disaster risk reduction”, while the third was an archaeologist.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X. His new book is available on Amazon.
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.
The final half-a-dozen or so paragraphs of the above extract are of the essence in this matter. It doesn’t matter what the subject may be (it doesn’t even matter if you know the square root of f-all about the subject), when there are two sides to an argument and one party refuses to engage in a debate, then you KNOW ABSOLUTELY which party is correct. By their silence and refusal to engage, the BBC, and others, condemn themselves and their moronic, ignorant stance.
I ordered the book yesterday
It is on my Kindle now! Thanks to Chris for his constant efforts.