We’re publishing an original article by freelance journalist Chris Morrison disputing the idea that anyone who challenges climate change alarmism is a conspiracy theorist. Some of them are actually quite respectable.
Just before he died the popular communicator Clive James wrote an essay entitled “Mass Death Dies Hard” in which he noted that in reporting climate science the BBC “has been behaving for several years as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union”. When he died, the obits mostly glossed over his apostasy, although in his lifetime the fount of eternal doom George Monbiot called him a “sucker”.
“When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true,” wrote James. “The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.”
The writer Melanie Phillips was the first editor of the Guardian environmental supplement and today is a trenchant supporter of debating the unproven scientific hypothesis that humans cause all or most global warming. She has called the idea of settled science a “scam”. Writing on her Substack after Justin Welby said that politicians failing to address the climate emergency would be guilty of indirect genocide, she concluded that his “grossly inappropriate comparison illustrated the way in which the climate issue has unbalanced people so they lose all sense of proportion”.
The only Apollo scientist who went to the moon, Harrison Schmitt, argues that there is “no evidence” that humans cause climate change, a reference to the fact that the hypothesis has yet to produce a single peer-reviewed, credible science paper that proves it. His scepticism is shared by Buzz Aldrin, causing the polemist (and sceptic) Mark Steyn to note: “Clearly this Buzz Aldrin kook is just some whack job who believes the moon landings were filmed in Nevada.”
Dr. Patrick Moore helped to found Greenpeace and spent 15 years with the organisation. These days he thinks Greenpeace is a “monster” having turned to extremism “to try to justify its continued existence”. In his view the atmosphere could do with more CO2 plant food since it is emerging from a period of denudation when levels fell dangerously low. In fact, the recent (mostly natural) small rises in atmospheric C02 have led to an increase in global vegetation of over 14% and helped alleviate devastating famine in many parts of the world.
Many eminent scientists, sometimes at great career cost, insist the proposition that humans cause the climate to change must be subject to debate and not treated as dogma. Former MIT physicist Professor Richard Lindzen observed that there is no data trend towards extreme temperatures and in his view “an implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct knowledge and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilisation”.
In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear antimatter Emeritus Professor Antonio Zichichi recently led 48 science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “Natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.”
Climate theologians have two main lines of attack in bolstering their infallible hypothesis. One is to suggest that opposing arguments are so intellectually bereft of merit that they are similar to denying the known, and proved, fact of the Jewish Holocaust – hence the use of the word “denier”. The second is to claim that anyone disagreeing with them is signed up to a conspiracy.
Last month IpsosMori produced a report on conspiracy theories and defined them as the “belief that an event or situation is the outcome of a secret plan”. Among those conspiracy theories considered by the report was the belief that “climate change is not due to human activity”. That’s right, challenging the climate emergency hypothesis means you’re an irrational troglodyte who probably believes the earth is flat and 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by the Israeli secret service. Sadly, it seems, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the only one struggling to keep control of his intellectual faculties.
In fact, a convincing conspiracy argument could be made for the promoters of settled climate science. We have seen that there is no substantive proof that humans cause all or most global warming. The entire push for net zero, which offers economic and political advantages to the few, not the many, is based on guesses of enormous temperature rises in the near future from climate models that have never produced an accurate forecast in 40 years of operation. What global warming there was appears to have petered out, a process that started in the late 1990s. The latest global temperature record from the University of East Anglia and the Met Office shows no rise for 91 months. The satellite record confirms this with over seven years of flatlining. In the U.K., this year is likely to be 0.5C chillier than 2020, while the 2010s were colder than the previous decade.
To counter all these inconvenient facts, the Guardian newspaper is now mandating the use of “global heating” in place of “global warming” because… well, it sounds hotter. Elsewhere in the mainstream media, the concept of a “climate emergency” – sometimes upgraded to “climate breakdown” – is in full swing. To promote this agenda, bad weather has been rebranded “extreme weather” and every fire, flood, drought, heatwave, and so forth, is used to argue that Thermogeddon is just around the corner. The emotional babblings of a Swedish child, who is said by her mother to be able to see the demon C02 gas with her own eyes, are elevated to international prominence. At the same time, Guardian activists sign a letter saying they will not “lend their credibility” to climate change “deniers” by debating climate science.
As early as 2006 the BBC met in a secret conclave and decided that humans cause climate change and the matter was not to be challenged on the airwaves. Sadly, that is the way journalism often works at the BBC, as Clive James, a free thinker to the last, came to realise. Stories are covered according to a set agenda. Even the gender of those whose opinions are aired is governed by a strict 50:50 rule.
Writing this article gives your correspondent an idea for a conspiracy theory book. A group of disaffected Marxists and Malthusians, ex-hippies, politicians with a ‘world king’ complex, and self-identifying scientists plan to take over the world by promising to stop the climate changing. They spin the line that burning ancient plant matter to live in conditions unimaginable to previous generations is the source of all bad weather and if allowed to continue will destroy life on Earth. To back up their scare stories, they consult crystal balls – I mean climate models – that warn of an approaching planetary fireball. If the title is not already taken, I shall call it Last Minute to Midnight.
Of course it would never sell – it’s not even remotely believable.
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.
“Conspiracy theorist”? Isn’t that a term that was promoted by those nice people at the CIA? No doubt for our own good…
Any how, surely no doubt that the climate scare is a massive waste of money. Too many real problems being ignored, and staggering duplicity by mass importing from the People’s Republic of China where coal is hauled from filthy open cast mines using aging steam locomotives. A place that has no intention of giving up coal any time soon.
I remember the late, great Christopher Booker reporting on the extraordinary meeting at the BBC where they decided to give up any pretence of impartiality on the climate scare.
And his talk of the Guardian’s “Great Moonbat”.
I seem to remember that the IPCC was consciously aimed at promoting a CCP style world order – essentially a political organisation anyway.
Trouble is, too many people seem to treat “the science” like democratic politics, whereby if a big majority have a certain view, they must be right, whereas in reality science is often just the opposite, and the number of scientists believing something doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with how true it is. A majority of British scientists used to believe in the Piltdown fraud. And with the sort of mass indoctrination and censorship we’ve seen in academia, rigorous science has perhaps fallen a bit by the wayside.
Irrigation, flood defences etc. would be better than some of the stuff that’s been suggested even if there is a problem.
An excellent article.
I’ve been arguing on The Guardian for the last 10 years about the overblown theory of man made global warming so I’m glad to hear that they now refuse to debate it with anyone as it was like a cult that wouldn’t budge from its zealotory.
There are hundreds of climate experts and thousands of scientists who refute the IPCC and there are hundreds of peer reviewed sceptical scientific papers.
I’m sure the Graun would have plumped for ‘golbal haetign’ as sounding hotter than ‘warming’.
“Every fire… used to argue ‘thermogeddon’ “.
I remember there was a wild fire in Sutherland (North Scotland) a bit ago.
Fact is, these big fires are largely due to bad land management.
I forget the statistic, but in Australia, a significant number of the wild fires start next to a road. I can only guess why that might be: perhaps it’s because the materials used to build the road spontaneously combust – can’t think of any other reason!
I recall one old Assie cobber telling the TV News crew that the environment people had prevented him from cutting back the scrub which he had always done continuously to prevent wildfires.
This he said was to protect the environment of some rare frog that was living under his farmstead. He finished by spitting into the camera
“the fire’s come, the fire’s gone, the shrubs gone, the farm’s gone and so’s the bloody frog”.
The fires in Australia, just like in California, are due to the abandonment, in the name of green ideology, of backburns, a practice the Aborigines used to do that was copied by the whites who came to Australia.
This leaves loads of fuel around for fires because green ideology either ignores the fire triangle or approves of the results of this policy.
The precise opposite to what used to (hopefully) occur in the Somerset Levels.
The the Environment Agency halted the centuries old practice whereby landholders manually cleared the smaller drains and runoffs on their farms.
The Agency claimed that this resulted in more pollution entering the entire drainage area by way of fertiliser and slurry (where did they think it would eventually end up going anyway?)
The obvious and predicted result was years of minor local flooding followed by massively damaging floods after a prolonged period of rainfall deluges about a decade ago.
This finally got the attention of the press and some local MPs so the Agency was forced to allow landholders to resume their ancient methods ( free of charge it might be added).
In other words, Nanny not only didn’t know best but, in fact, knew the square root of sod all and didn’t let that deter her from intervening.
Sums it up nicely Moist. The consensus being that The Agency just wanted to be seen as In Charge.
Note that sod all was done in the face of local flooding that only inconvenienced small landholders (by which I mean landowners, landlords and tenant farmers).
One can only wonder at what most of those employed at the Environment Agency know about anything, other than pushing the line they’ve been told to push.
Added to which landowners forced to allow ill-trained visitors to roam at will witheir slovenly habits and carelessness.
This reply is to Hugh because my comment won’t post
Yes & no.
Fire is a natural part of the ecology of many ecosystems, many species have evolved to cope with it, even benefit from it.
Destroying habitat to prevent humans setting fire to it is as stupid as the people setting the fires.
Thankfully, in the UK, we don’t have that problem because we don’t have any natural ecosystems.
Every year someone seems to set the moors alight in the peak district.
Accidental or deliberate arson as in a recent case in California.
Who remembers that Channel 4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’? I wonder if they’ll ever repeat it any time soon?
I have the original as a digital file on an exterior hard drive.
About 700mb
I do. I remember it being a very good documentary.
It’s available on youtube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
Well worth watching, it’s how I found out about arch hypocrite Al Gore buying a beachside pleasuredome while preaching to the world about rising sea levels.
Perhaps Al intends to use his place as a ‘static’ bathing machine like those favoured by the Victorians?
Just watched it again, the similarities to Covid are truly remarkable
The Guardian redefines terminology or changes it completely for a certain agenda of fear. Well knock me over that the same playbook of covertly changing definitions for covid has been used. Surely someone has a new thesaurus for all these changes over 24months? Nudge nudge, accept what we say and you’ll be rewarded with a green pass. I wonder when they’ll redefine ‘living free’ or even ‘green pass’ as living in the metaverse with your headset inside your high-rise flat? You can visit Victoria falls, Uluru and the empire state building all on the same day. Freedom!
Personally I love much of the technology.
Its pissing down with rain outside, windy and cold.
Here I am, warm and comfy communicating throughout the world with my little portable device which is cheap as chips to operate. Considering ordering food to be delivered to my home because I can’t be bothered to cook, I need some cigs and booze for this evening.
Anticipating many weeks and months inactivity due to recuperation I bought from Amazon (yes I know, feeding the beast) a stack of DVDs but I’m so taken up on t’internet (and housework) that they sit unwatched except perhaps when I’m eating (alone).
50 years ago I would have been staring out of the single pane window at the rain, dare I put a bit more coal on the fire?* Listening to Workers Playtime on the Radiogram (which did have better audio because Valves).
Later the black and white telly would come on for Watch With Mother before risking a dash through the rain, with yesterdays Daily Express on my head, to my friends house to play Snakes And Ladders for hours on end.
*Actually open fires were much better than modern heating once they got going, you’d cleaned out all the mess (clinker) from the day before and then dusted yourself down.
I was watching a US detective drama from a few years ago, and his hi-fi included a Marantz valve amplifier, which warmed the cockles of my heart (and probably his lounge, too).
Isn’t getting people to discuss ‘Climate Change’ a ’77th tactic’ to derail people from discussing the ‘lockdowns’ and forceful ‘vaccinations’ that are happening right now?
What subjects next? Comparing various brands of washing machines? Religion? Abortion?
‘Climate Change’ may be just a subject to get people used to the oncoming Chinese-style ‘Social Credit System’. Gradually you are being brainwashed into thinking you are a menace to the world and should minimise your ‘carbon footprint’ so you should give international travel/flying a miss. And because you don’t need that money for plane tickets anymore, your wages can be cut and you’ll be just as happy, so long as you can buy enough food to give you the energy to drag yourself to work, to the dark satanic mills in your clogs.
I’ve posted below about withdrawing from the climate change debate some years ago once my mind was made up, in part because it was so time consuming so I do sympathise with your view that this article is a distraction from Covid/lockdown/vaccines.
But the decision was made to change the site from lockdownsceptics to DS presumably to widen the fields for discussion, perhaps this article would have been better placed in the Roundup.
It does serve a purpose in reminding us that many of the tactics used by the the pro-lockdown/mandatory infant-vaxxers have been used for decades. A simple example being Changing Of The Words. You may recall the very rapid switch from Global Warming to Climate Change which happened because it wasn’t (warming).
I read your posts with interest and for enlightenment, even sardonic amusement as towards the end of your comment above Emerald Fox. But, with all due respect, nobody is obliging you to comment on articles that you, perhaps rightly, regard as a distraction.
I vented my spleen a while ago regretting the way articles were posted above the daily Roundup before most (UK) people had even woken up and was firmly downticked for my troubles; over 100
I believe which might be something of a record
for an opening comment!
Green ideology is behind lockdown, green ideology is mediaeval in nature and it’s no coincidence that the biggest Branch Covidians are also greens, like Kim Jong Johnson and Nicola Ceausescu.
Apart from the obvious bad stuff Adolf Hitler was remarkably green and ‘progressive’.
And Ronnie and Reggie Kray took care of their old mum, so they can’t have been all bad.
Diamond geezers!
Hitler’s green ideology was fully consistent with his brown ideology, that’s what almost no one understands.
Hitler’s ‘blood and soil’ is the green/brown paradise of environmentalism.
Not my downtick btw, I don’t go in for them except for commercial spam.
Bosch is better than Hoover. Discuss!
The only hard fact we have is that CO2 concentrations have gone from the mid 200s ppm to the low 400s ppm over the industrial era.
Understanding what that means in practice should be the subject of cool heads and rational debate – particularly as it cannot be settled by experiment.
But we have to be careful about going the other way. Hysterical ramblings work in both directions.
Neither the Chinese, nor the Indians are going to give up their development to satisfy the rantings of a mentally unwell Swedish perma-teen. Therefore what change there is we will have to adapt to. And it is that adaption we should be discussing.
I prefer to say the atmosphere has changed by 0.002% (0.0002% of that is man) it puts it into context far better.
The entirety of greenism has been co-opted from proper pollutants to enable rent-seeking via falsely labelling CO2 a pollutant and thus regulating low density (i.e. high land use power sources which in reality collect the subsidies (Ricardo’s Law of Rent)).
First – you are out by a decimal place. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently about 0.04% – it has doubled over the industrial era – so the increase is 0.02%.
Second – in any case the concentration is irrelevant. All that shows is that there a lot of other gas up there. What matters is the absolute value.
Third – pretty much all of the increase is man made. I think you are confusing the fact that we contribute a small proportion of the CO2 going into the atmosphere. But prior to our contribution this was in balance – the CO2 going in was matched by the CO2 going out – e.g photosynthesis and absorption into the oceans (this is not a coincidence – the CO2 level rises until outputs match inputs). Our relatively small extra contribution to the input accounts for the excess of input over output which leads to rising concentrations.
aha the man made CO2 is special and different “argument”
No wonder you’re a jab bunny.
So presumably you accept my first and second points. Yes man made CO2 is different. To be more precise CO2 from fossil fuels has no C14 isotope while other sources do. Do you dispute this?
First: it was around 280, now just over 410, not doubling.
Damn this phone- it did the italicising, not me, honest. . .
‘The only hard fact we have is that CO2 concentrations have gone from the mid 200s ppm to the low 400s ppm over the industrial era.’
A ppm much under 200 approaches the threshold for photosynthesis. Anything under than means no oxygen.
According to this (written before climate change became a political issue) the limit is between 50 and 100 ppm – quite a lot lower than 200.
The chapter written by Clive James in the below is excellent.
https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Climate-Change-The-Facts-2017_p_52.html
I used to be quite lively, as a not at all expert in anything, in the climate change debate many years ago until I satisfied myself that my side of the discussion (watsupwithat.com etc) we correct and that the other side, usual suspects, were not only wrong but were often liars and charlatans. Sometimes, as with carbon credits, outright crooks.
15 years ago when first going online I set my home location for my Yahoo email as Tuvalu as that was widely predicted to have sunk beneath the waves within a decade yet it is still with us.
I no longer spend time on the debat since my own contributions were minimal yet every day one comes across yet another example of the hypocrisy and greed of the so-called environment friendly.
Just last week I came across the location of the biggest coal mine on Europe, not just a coal mine but an open-cast mine leaving massive environmental scars over vast areas. Not just coal but Lignite coal, the least efficient and most polluting coal that exists.
Not just The biggest open-cast dirty lignite coal mine but one of three next door to each other.
Poland?, Bulgaria perhaps? Evil post communist military dictatorship Belarus?.
None of the above; it’s in Environmental Maniac Germany, former East Germany probably; no it’s actually not far from Cologne and all three are still growing every single year.
Yes, they have an amazing machine that digs the coal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7zIZVlMtFY
That’s the one, just so Angela Merkel can brandish her anti nuclear credentials.
Yes, the Germans saw what happened at Fukushima and decided to close down their nuclear power plants, because Germany is famously vulnerable to tsunamis.
Then they make up the shortfall in generation by burning the dirtiest type of coal. Genius plan.
Lignite Über Alles?
I think that I should point out that claiming that those who disagree with you are ‘deniers’ or ‘conspiracy theorists’ is NOT a stupid or laughable tactic.
It has enabled the establishment class of this world to take over the reins of power in an authoritarian putsch with no opposition whatsoever.
You will notice that Britain, the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, is now run by decree from think-tanks and oligarch-funded activist groups – working through a compliant civil service. Politicians are reduced to being the salesmen for previously-agreed policies, and the purveyor of excuses when they fail. Though the excuses most frequently comprise the words “Look! A squirrel!”.
There is a current proposal to curb the words MPs are allowed to use in the House. Which will soon mean that all they are allowed to do is to agree with ‘government’# policy…..
The people behind the climate hoax are the same people behind the covid hoax and they are taking us down the same tried and tested path. Whereas over the years, climate scientists who questioned AGW have been systematically censored, vilified, sacked, threatened with murder, or otherwise ejected from the system, we are now seeing this same approach being adopted with anyone questioning the covid narrative. This is how the scammers can arrive at their much vaunted “97% of scientists agree…….” put down. Because only one side of the debate can be heard, AGW is now taken as axiomatic and taught to our brainwashed children as fact. In twenty years time, when all dissenting medical voices have long since been silenced, the same will be true for the covid narrative and those who survive the forthcoming onslaught on their personal autonomy and civilisation will be taught about ‘The Great Pandemic of 2020-2030’ and how both climate and covid ‘science’ saved them from extinction.
The 97% figure was arrived at only by systematically redefining what they meany by scienctist, until they got a scary figure.
Well, they class Professor Pantsdown as such, which tells you all you need to know.
It is interesting to watch the swings and arrows of the establishment as they change their stories to maintain a united front against opposition.
You will recall that Wuhan, the original source of the Covid infection, was first held to be completely blameless, and then simply ignored when the evidence against it became too great?
The prime mover here appears to have been Dr Fauci, a rich establishment medic with an interest in the lucrative search for a cure to respiratory diseases like the common cold. As part of this research, he wanted to fund dangerous experiments with respiratory viruses, but was banned from doing it in the US. So he switched his funding to China, where it was easier to pretend that it was legal.
When the inevitable accidental leak happened, he first tried to pretend that his research had nothing to do with the virus, and now claims that it was all the fault of the nasty Chinese – but we can’t do anything about it because they are nasty. Still nothing to do with him.
If a sane world he would have a long term in prison for mass manslaughter…
Considering the remdesivir/ventilator treatment and the ruthless suppression of HCQ & Ivermectin (and jab injuries & research), I’d say it’s the other M-word.
I note that weather forecasts are turning to volcanic eruptions now because there is not sufficient “climate” alarm from weather events.
Similarly winter storms are named to give them more presence. Looking at the forecast for my area I should be having steady wind speeds of 35k/h gusing up to 70k/h right now. Looking at my personal weather station data, it is 5 gusting to 14. So much for gentle breeze Barra.
Mark Steyn to note: “Clearly this Buzz Aldrin kook is just some whack job who believes the moon landings were filmed in Nevada.”
Steyn was being ironic. But not so fast. Are you sure Buzz Aldrin doesn’t believe the moon landings were filmed in Nevada? Hear what the man himself has to say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyYQXIE9D1Q
Please can the author respond to the content of this film, which provides significant good quality evidence that Israel played a massive role in 911 and that in reality the point of 911 was to kickstart the War On Terror which was the cover for blowing up and “Balkanising” the Middle East, in line with fulfilling documented plans such as the Clean Break and Oded Yinon and the documents penned by many well known Neocons all linked to Israel who seized control of the US government especially in the war sense. Its not like they made any effort to hide their plans or intentions, in fact they openly promoted them
War by Deception
https://www.bitchute.com/video/d8E6qLblH0Ib/
This is also very interesting, including the info in the opening section. Seems the former PM of Israel knew the entire official story of 911 within a few hours of the planes hitting, and got the chance to announce it on BBC news to get the story in early
Ehud Barak September 11 interview London UK 2001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tbxYWKtYWM
The War Party – BBC Panorama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fBVvSvUawE
When The Guardian produced real journalism:
Playing skittles with Saddam
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/03/worlddispatch.iraq
9/11 was the work of Saudi Arabia, it was the work of Islam, that is why it was celebrated so publicly by the Palestinians.
Palestinians do not celebrate the work of Israel.
Your post pretends Islam isn’t what it is.
Garbage
Nope. Islam was behind 9/11 and you whitewash the entire ideology.
Garbage +
Climate change is exactly the same as Covid in exhibiting weird human behaviour. Once these idiots are invested in the idea, nothing at all is going to convince them they were wrong.
As a society we have last the ability to debate rationally and concede when wrong.
Nothing really changes does it? I seem to remember we were having the same debates a few billion years ago when those pesky cyanobacteria started pumping oxygen into the atmosphere, paving the way for the ruination of our lovely dead rock. The SAGES were right: the megaviruses careening about on their little spiky protein limbs have won. Time to bring in solar distancing…
Brilliant. Funniest thing I’ve read all day. Solar distancing …!!
Don’t worry, the PTB will sort this just like they have with that pesky virus. Trust our leaders . Follow the rules and keep the faith. All will be well.
Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and formerly Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), who prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government, the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author for the IPCC reports, lets the cat out of the bag rather spectacularly (emphasis mine) in favour of his socialist agenda:
At least he’s honest about it
hat in reporting climate science the BBC “has been behaving for several years as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union”.
And they have succeeded!
I’d love to visit St. Julian’s Church in Norwich. (Yes, I have a copy of the damnable Middle English book.) But if going there, I’d insist on having a map in-hand so I could stay on the far side of town from the University’s Climatic Research Unit.
‘One is to suggest that opposing arguments are so intellectually bereft of merit that they are similar to denying the known, and proved, fact of the Jewish Holocaust’
Yes, the most factually, factual piece of honest historical accounting there has ever been and to suggest otherwise is a hate crime.
‘Denier’ is a term used to smear those opposed to green and brown ideology as Nazis.
Environmentalism is both green and brown, the Holodomor and the Holocaust are their ideal results.
Climate change is like marmite, people seem to take extreme positions on it. Read any article in the Guardian, and they all spit venom at anyone wanting to debate facts.
Equally, I’ve just looked at the comments BTL and someone of them are clearly just as biased & uneducated, yes I know you won’t like it, but the truth is we have done tremendous harm to our environment & in the end future generations will be the ones to suffer the consequences.
I don’t subscribe to AGW fearmongering, evidently the climate is in transition because it always has been, its been getting warmer for thousands of years I suspect our activity has added marginally to that. But it has been warmer in the past, I don’t believe from the evidence I’ve seen climate change is the environmental issue we should be focusing on!
We’ve done considerable ecosystem damage where most ecosystems are failing but much of the mitigation science imposes is more harmful than helpful, you can not interfere with natural process and maintain nature! Anyone who denies the damage down is frankly blind or an idiot.
Climate Change was cooked up by The Club of Rome, or should I say Global Warming was. The name change was necessary for two reasons.. one the planet is cooling into a solar minimum, and two Climate Change allows for considerable elasticity in the bullshit..
So, is Mark Steyn a ‘polemist’ or a polemicist?
I think we should be told.
There’s surely an easy way to test Greta’s claims. Get a row of bell jars, fill them with differing concentrations of CO2, and ask her to rank them in order.
What – and destroy her future?
This is rather interesting, “politicians failing to address the climate emergency would be guilty of indirect genocide”. Did mr Welby voice any such criticism when it became blindingly obvious that politicians started committing actual, as opposed to imaginary, genocide through the vaccine roll-out? Of course not, culling the population is a favorite pastime of left-wing power-hungry loons. It is their ultimate wet dream, The fake climate emergency is just another way to impose their will and their plans for remaking society on an unwilling population.