We’re publishing a guest post today by journalist Chris Morrison about the 1.5°C target, the climate change models and the way in which ambitious politicians, self-described ‘scientists’ and rent-seeking industrialists have leapt on the bandwagon to end all bandwagons.
Politics, not science, lies behind the drive to keep global temperatures to 1.5°C. Not the thoughts of your correspondent, but the clear implication of words spoken in 2010 by the so-called father of 2°C, an earlier IPCC target, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. Interviewed by the Der Speigel, Mr Schellnhuber, the IPCC lead author and at the time Angela Merkel’s Climate Adviser, was asked why he had imposed the “magical limit” to which all countries must slavishly adhere. He said: “Politicians like to have clear targets and a simple number is easier to handle.”
Of course, the push to net zero and the ‘settled’ science that is claimed to support the move is political. It is in fact the great political debate of the age, which makes it surprising to see the head of the BBC Tim Davie attempt last week to promote the impartiality of the Corporation by suggesting that climate change is no longer a political issue. To which it might be tempting to reply that Mr Davie no longer fears the approaching climate fireball, because he has already relocated to another planet. Perhaps he hasn’t seen the BBC’s climate editor Justin Rowlett become increasingly agitated with Boris Johnson because the Prime Minister refused to commit to shut down all coal mining. Or read the one-sided output of Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s Energy and Environment Analyst, whom Charles Moore suggests would be happier in a pulpit.
Almost two weeks ago, Jon Snow fronted an hour long Channel 4 News shaking with emotion as he introduced stories featuring fire, flood and climate collapse of almost biblical proportion. Last week he attributed a large plant blocking the rail tracks on his way to Glasgow to climate change. His behaviour might call to mind George Orwell’s famous quote that some ideas are so stupid “that only intellectuals believe them”, but Mr Snow is actually at the cutting edge of new academic research trying to shift the political narrative from global warming to “extreme” weather.
In 2020 the IPCC lead author Professor Reto Knutti published a paper entitled “Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather on a global scale”. This of course is the Holy Grail of climate activism. The last two decades have seen little actual global warming despite higher levels of mostly naturally produced CO2 entering the atmosphere. According to satellite readings published last month, the global temperatures haven’t moved for seven years. In fact, the current high points in the record correspond to the peak of the brief warming in the 1980s and 1990s, suggesting temperatures haven’t really risen for almost 25 years. Perhaps because of this, the move to demonise bad weather, or “extreme” weather, continues apace.
“The fingerprint of climate change is detected from any single day in the observed global record since early 2012, and since 1999 on the basis of a year of data,” reports Professor Knutti. Possibly with Messrs Rowlatt, Harrabin and Snow in mind, the academic notes that this opens broader perspectives for “modifying the climate change narrative”. In his view “global climate change is now detected instantaneously”.
It might not surprise that Professor Knutti is a specialist in climate models and most of his interesting speculations derive from interpreting their results. Many activist academics argue that despite never having produced an accurate forecast in almost 40 years of operation, the models are still fit for purpose. Writing in the Spectator last week, the senior NASA climate adviser Gavin Schmidt said it was important to realise that most outcomes “depend on the overall trend and not the fine scale details of any given models”. Presumably, these mere details don’t now include a requirement to provide an accurate forecast, despite the fact that the world is being forced to net zero on the basis of the modellers’ guesses. Neither is it clear what “trend” Mr Schmidt is talking about. Certainly not the trend of static global temperatures, a trend not foreseen by any of the models.
Gigantic guesses of course lie at the heart of climate models. Nobody knows what effect doubling atmospheric CO2 has on the temperature of the Earth. The scientific answer is not so much settled as unknown, so modellers speculate on the actual sensitivity by picking a number up to 6°C. Ten years ago Professor Knutti addressed this problem, admitting: “The quest to determine climate sensitivity has now been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range.”
What a difference a decade can make in the modellers’ world. From admitting the fundamental flaw that lies at the heart of climate modelling to being able to show long term trends in the climate from just one day of weather. This is progress indeed, sure to gladden the hearts of all green journalists and politicians along with a vast modern army of self-identifying ‘scientists’ and rent-seeking industrialists.
Declaring climate change is no longer a political issue gives free rein to BBC activists such as Justin Rowlatt to promote their own views on suitable energy sources. But it comes at the expense of holding the Prime Minister to account for some of his increasingly outlandish environmental suggestions, in particular his interview statement that 70% of the world’s coral will be destroyed at 1.5°C warming. At 2°C, he added, all of it will be gone.
Given that the 1.5°C figure already includes the 1.1°C warming seen since the early 1800s, it is difficult to see how a small increase in air temperature will destroy most of the world’s coral. Surely Mr Johnson was not just making it up as he went along? It would have been worth Mr Rowlatt’s time to press the matter given that tropical coral grows happily in waters between 24°C and 32°C. The findings of Professor Peter Ridd, who has spent 40 years studying the Great Barrier Reef, suggest that coral bleaches with sudden temporary changes of temperature caused by natural weather oscillations such as El Nino. The Reef is likely to stay intact since most of the coral is located in water at the lower range of these supposedly dangerous temperatures.
You can dispute Professor Ridd’s findings but you cannot just write them out of the dialogue as the BBC and all mainstream broadcasters are now doing. Everything about climate, the science and promoted solutions is political.
Few climate scientists are more political than Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. In his 2010 Der Spiegel interview, he concluded that to meet green challenges “we’ll need innovative refinement of our democratic institutions”. He went on to “imagine” giving 10% of all Parliamentary seats “to ombudsmen who represent only the interests of future generations”.
As always in green politics, enormous strides have been made over the last decade. Two years ago the first director of Prince Charles’s Rainforests Trust Angus Forbes wrote a book calling for a Global Planet Authority to have complete control over the biosphere. Once members are appointed by a global franchise that includes children over 12, it would be answerable to nobody. Mr. Forbes, who is married to the former Strictly Come Dancing judge Dame Darcey Bussell, suggests placing 40% of global land in parks, maintained as “ultra light zones” incurring “almost zero human pressure”. One of the first areas he suggests could become a national park is the entire island of Madagascar.
You may laugh…
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.
Perhaps most politicians cannot count beyond 5?
I think they can when there’s a £ in front.
Everything is a lie.
( At least everything you hear from an ” Official ” source ).
Almost everything you thought was true is a lie! We
arewhere just free-range slaves.I can’t watch bbc, Channel 4 or ITV news now. All just blatant left wing propaganda and deceitfully reporting on issues such as covid and climate change to make them appear disproportionately worse then they are. They then enthusiastically support whatever repressive measures the government of the day introduce supposedly in an attempt to save us all from imminent doom.
And presented by the most sanctimonious individuals you’d ever meet outside of COP26
The agenda pushing makes me sick.
Sky news Australia is good.
Sadly even they appear to have caved , having sacked Alan Jones over his climate stance….
I just saw Simon McCoy on the GB news post above regarding NHS healthcare workers having compulsory vaccinations. He sounded just like the BBC. I wonder why?
This 8min video concisely explains why CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming/climate change/climate emergency:
https://youtu.be/n-W76C0kkwc
Suspicious Observers – top post!
‘Rent-seeking’ industrialists, I think would be better described as ‘financiers’ , haven’t jumped on the bandwagon, they are the bandwagon.
The ‘global planet authority’ already exists, its the aligned body of governments, central banks coordinated by the BIS, and investors (corporate and individual) who are organising the financialisation of the ‘global commons’. All the resources of the planet , including the human cattle ( hence ‘covid’ health passes etc) will keep the financial system from collapsing in a new paradime worth estimated $4,000trillion. The investors aim to get exceedingly wealthy and governments extremely powerful. Its all in place and proceeding, the disruption created by mandatory green policies provides the opportunities. The only small details are who gets what share of the cake. Wars have been fought over far less.
Its not about what they say its about!
The IPCC Cnuts should target tidal change, oh they did.
And they keep giving dates on when the world will end (aka the clock in NYC) because of climate change. Makes me wonder who the real conspiracy theorists are.
Every date they’ve given (up to 2020) for something bad to happen e.g. millions of climate refugees, no arctic sea ice in summer etc. has come and gone without the predicted catastrophy occouring. Since every prediction for what would happen by now has proven false there is no reason to think that any prediction made by environmentalists of doom and gloom in the future should be taken seriously.
Professor Knutti! That about sums the whole thing up.
Anyone who refuses to even listen to a contrary opinion has something to hide, the truth mainly.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-step-in-plans-to-govern-use-of-digital-identities-revealed–2
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-identity-attributes-trust-framework-updated-version
backbone of social credit is government “identity”
Jesus wept. We’re doomed – these bast**ds have had the scam all worked out well in advance. The bloody politicos are clearly signed up to it, almost without exception. If anyone can see an answer to it please tell…
So in the last few decades alone, we have had the terrorist threat, the pandemic threat and now the climate threat.
All three have one thing in common, government backing, press advertising and corporate sponsorship.
All three have actually threatened a minority of people, but have been conflated to appear threatening to all.
All three have more plot holes than a poorly made Hollywood blockbuster, yet any attempt to question the narrative is met with hostile resistance.
And people wonder why we are sceptical.
And the governments only answer to all 3 seems to be for the public to surrender all their freedoms and prosperity.
Indeed, it’s always the great unwashed’s fault, so we have to pay for it. Nothing to do with the fact it is the upper echelons that caused all the problems to begin with.
If indeed the problems exist (or at least to the extent they claim they do) or are caused by man.
Making mountains out of molehills, that’s the policy. Keep the masses afraid of something, imagined or real, they are easier to lead when scared.
http://www.whale.to/c/H.-L.-Mencken-Quotes-2.jpg
http://www.whale.to/a/mencken.html
Climate change – alongside Covid another issue government’s around the world are enthusiastically using as an excuse to control and impoverish gullible publics.
Hey look on the bright side of global warming, at least it isn’t global cooling, that really would be a problem for us.
Personally I am looking forward to the U.K. taking on a more Mediterranean climate
think I will go and take the old V12 jag for a drive to help us on our way 
I know i’m looking forward to warmer winters.
Sadly global cooling is what we’re likely facing. Given that the sun is the main driver of climate, and has been unusually active for the last 70 or so years (as indicated by the number of sunspots) this would explain the current warm spell. The vast majority of solar scientists predict rapidly declining solar activity up to at least 2050, which will lead to global cooling. The only real question is how much the Earth will cool by and how quickly, the main unknown seems to be the amount of heat that is stored in the oceans and how quickly it will be lost. Some predictions are for 1 degree of cooling by 2050 which would take us back to temperatures last seen at the end of the little ice age, e.g. the early 19th centuary when severe winters and widespread famines were common in Europe and North America. Even if these predictions don’t come true it’s almost certain that the next 30 or so years will see no warming, and probably slight cooling.
It’s quite hard to generalise even about the climate in the past. I thought the Little Ice age was really from about 1520 to 1720. Was it still going in the 19thc? The Chinese appear to think the world’s climate is going to get colder. I doubt if human CO2 generation will make any significant difference, apart from possibly an ameliorative one.
We’re guessing (and so are the rest of them). It’s not just global statistics, though. The detailed effect in certain geographical zones is much more complex. E.g. our weather is strongly affected by the North Atlantic Drift, and how the jet stream behaves as well. Exactly how they will develop keeps the meteorologist busy, but beyond a certain point, they don’t really know.
All you need is Tony Heller..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=8455KEDitpU
Made me laugh, the western commentators wetting themselves when China said they would aim for 2 degrees rather than 1.5. What an absolute farce all round.
Now you’ve got me wanting to find out more about Angus Forbes and his wacky ideas…how on earth could any organisation have control over the biosphere? And would that include my garden? Let’s make the whole of Madagascar a national park! Sure, it’s an independent nation of 30 million, but these are mere details! Didn’t one of Herr H’s circle want to do something similar with eastern Europe?
What they made it up?
Anyone want my full set of Greta Thunberg cigarette cards?
Tony Heller has been exposing these fraudsters since they took over the geo-sciences. The whole spectacle began at scale since Al Gore was “presented” the Nobel Peace Prize.
Research Roger Revelle and his student – Albert Gore.
this was reported 6 years ago on December 9, 2015 3.16pm GMT
https://theconversation.com/how-1-5-became-the-most-important-number-at-the-paris-climate-talks-51960
Of course, nothing to do with the natural cycle of the planet, warming and cooling, like has happened for billions of years, and will continue to do so long after the human race has ceased to exist.
Studys from the early 1970’s were claiming we would be extinct by the year 2000 due to “global warming”. Yet here we are.
If human activity is contributing to any changes in global climate, it is fairly minimal, and could easily be solved by measures to combat the actual perpetrators as apposed to the population at large.
> CO2 persists in the atmosphere for thousands of years and damages increase as temperatures rise
according to them. I doubt either is true.
Trust no one, believe nothing.
I’m going from a Leveller to a Manichaen.
https://thenewamerican.com/dr-robert-malone-this-is-the-largest-experiment-performed-on-human-beings-in-the-history-of-the-world/
Robert Malone has woken up and is telling the truth about the American involvement in biowarfare and the Wuhan lab.
The last two decades have seen little actual global warming despite higher levels of mostly naturally produced CO2 entering the atmosphere.
If only.
According to satellite readings published last month, the global temperatures haven’t moved for seven years.
Morrison is presumably referring to the UAH analysis of the satellite data (he gives no reference). He doesn’t mention the other analyses of the same data or the many other ways of measuring the global temperature record (surface measurements, weather balloons etc) all of which show a remarkable warming trend.
All this is the blink of an eye on a planetary scale. Why not look at the trend through hundreds of years, or rather thousands, to understand the ‘warming trend’ – not to mention the ‘cooling trend’? Or does 150 years sound like a long time to you?
Because what matters to most of us is what happens in the next 100 years. Yes 150 years sounds like a very long time.
A bit like the 2 metres (6 feet, though actually closer to 7) for social distancing. Random authoritarianism.
”….little actual global warming despite higher levels of mostly naturally produced CO2 entering the atmosphere…” And that’s because, of course, there is no correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the Earth’s temperatures.