Another week, another climate ‘fact check’ for the Daily Sceptic. Four in the last month – not a single fact proved wrong, but plenty of gripes from green activists about scientific interpretations. Maybe it is time for an appearance by the Monty Python Colonel, who frequently interrupted sketches by claiming they were “too silly”.
Virginia-based academic public relations company Newswise has claimed our June 10th article titled “Net Zero Shock: Carbon Dioxide Rises AFTER Temperature Increases, Scientists Find”, was “mostly false”. The Newswise story was written by Editor-in Chief Craig Jones and Texas-based professor of atmospheric sciences Andrew Dessler. Professor Dessler is a man of considerable scientific certitude, and has been described as the “alarmist’s alarmist”.
In our article, we reported that two climate science professors, Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Zbigniew Kundzewicz, sequenced the changes in temperatures and carbon dioxide growth rates from 1980 to 2019 from widely available sources, and discovered that CO2 values lagged temperature by about six months. The scientists made the obvious point that in attempting to prove causality by stating that increases in temperature are the result of human-caused CO2, cause cannot lag effect. I went on to note that other scientists had struggled to find evidence that CO2 was the global climate thermostat knob. In 2015, Professor Ole Humlum from the University of Oslo found similar lags in the recent record. In addition, the Vostock Ice Core, providing 422,766 years of Antarctic snow accumulation, showed that CO2 lagged the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years. Finally, a wider reconstruction of CO2 and temperature going back 600 million years to the start of life on Earth showed few correlations between the two.
Of course, nobody denies that CO2 has warming properties in the atmosphere. The debate within science over the human contribution to warming, now largely ignored, if not actually demonised by mainstream media, is over the extent. Some scientists say it is a lot, many others say it is negligible. The notion that the matter is ‘settled’ is little more than a political corruption of the scientific process.
Professor Dessler kicks off with the statement that the argument is “nonsense”. He says the scientific community is “100% sure that the increase in CO2 we see in the atmosphere is from the combustion of fossil fuels (with a contribution from land-use changes)”. Of course it depends how Dessler defines “land-use”. If he is only talking about peat bogs and building skyscrapers, he is plain wrong. If he includes the 96% of C02 that arises naturally from the planet as oceans outgas, volcanoes emit and animal and plant life evolves, he is stating the obvious.
This conclusion (whatever it is) is said to be supported by several lines of evidence. “First, for the past half century, each year’s increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on average 44% of what humans released into the atmosphere in that same year. Thus, when humans were emitting smaller amounts of carbon dioxide in the 1960s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was increasing at a slower rate than when humans were dumping large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as we are today.”
As with Dessler’s opening remarks, it is a little difficult to know what he is writing about. The sentence producing the 44% figure presumably relates to the 3-4% of CO2 that humans release into the atmosphere. If, as many distinguished scientists suggest, the gentle 1°C increase in global temperatures that has occurred over 200 years is largely a natural response after the lifting of the so-called mini ice age, most of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would have arisen from natural causes, as rising temperatures trigger natural CO2 release. So far as references to the 1960s are concerned, it is always interesting to point out that CO2 was rising during this period, as temperatures were briefly falling.
Dessler is a keen supporter of every command-and-control green deal and Net Zero project going. If we don’t take action, warming up to 9°F (5°C) is as “certain as death and taxes”, he claims. Scientists are said to be “certain” that humans are the cause of climate change. Such absolute certitude is of course rare in scientists, although not, it might be noted, in green activists. Recently he informs us that his work had shifted towards the “intersection of climate change and human society”. If he gets his way and removes fossil fuel from the world economy (about 80% of current energy supply) within less than 30 years, he must be hoping that he can stop nature in its tracks, and the 96% of CO2 still being emitted will co-operate with his grand designs.
Activist scientists often claim that carbon isotope ‘finger printing’ proves the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 arises from fossil fuel. Dessler notes: “Scientists measuring the composition of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere find it matches the isotopic composition of fossil fuels.”
Again, one might wish for a little more precision in Dessler’s prose. Presumably he is not referring to all the CO2 entering the atmosphere, just the 4% produced by humans. The isotope evidence – of carbon, again one must presume, not fossil fuels – is interesting, and needless to say the science on the matter is not settled. The carbon in living matter has a slightly higher proportion of 12C isotope, and when burnt it is said to slightly alter the balance of other atmospheric carbon isotopes. But a recent study by a team of scientists at the University of Massachusetts led by Professor Kenneth Skrable found that the claims of the dominance of anthropogenic fossil fuel in the isotope record had involved the “misuse” of statistics to validate the suggestions. The scientists concluded that the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning between 1750 and 2018 was “much too low to be the cause of global warming”.
The Daily Sceptic welcomes debate all on scientific matters, including climate change. But the recent flurry of ‘fact checking’ the subject is composed of little more than asserting ‘your facts are false or misleading’ and ‘my opinion is right’.
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.
The establishment correctly recognise Farage as a threat to them, just like AfD in Germany, RN in France and Trump in the US. Sadly of the four only Trump stands a chance of succeeding as we Europeans are far too sophisticated to allow horrid fascists to get into government.
Some consider Georgia Meloni a fascist. It doesn’t matter if any candidate is a fascist, it only matters if they are the ‘right’ kind. Take Jeremy Corbyn as an example: a socialist, just not the right kind of socialist.
Yes. Really it’s establishment vs non establishment.
Anyone who strays gets tarred with some label. Far right, far left, anti semite, racist.
I’m not aware Meloni has removed basic freedoms or forced people to take experimental drugs, unlike her predecessor in Italy.
You are probably correct in what you say about the “right” kind of socialist in Corbyn’s case.
She wasn’t able to rise above this.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/19/europe/italian-journalist-giorgia-meloni-tweet-mocking-height-intl-scli/
An own goal
Very amusing.
The tried and tested tactic is always accuse your opponents of being what you are and what you are doing.
I think many people use the word without knowing its meaning.
It may be fun to challenge those who say this to define fascism and describe how this relates to the situation they’re having the vapours about.
The term’s been overused and lost its meaning anyway it was Mussolini who was the Fascist, not Mr H.
I suspect the meaning is secondary to the effect, and many of those who use it know exactly the effect they are wanting to have
But the more they do it……
DId you mean facism of sophisticated. The original meaning of sophisticated was adulterated, as a CEO of a company where I worked informed the advertisers when they described on of the products as sophisticated.
A memo to that effect was circulated to the entire work force banning the use of the word in respect of company products.
I don’t follow your meaning.
We already have Fascists in Government – Fascism is collectivist and technocratic rule by the State – everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State, what the masses want is irrelevant, so anyone (populist) who takes the side of the masses is against the State and must be eliminated.
These days, Fascism is called __________ *Democracy (*insert cover word of choice, liberal, social, etc) to mislead.
We don’t have Fascist Government? the CoVid fake pandemic, mandated jabs, Net Zero, mass immigration, imposing warped morality and debauching our values, regulation of every aspect of our private lives to meet to meet the interests of the State as decided by those in charge and their cronies – describe what system of Government this is.
100% but only a few have noticed orbits actually what they want
In a nutshell.
Farage is a useful smokescreen to hide the left wing environmental proposals and other areas of concern announced this week.
Just say Farage or Trump and the blob giggle like schoolchildren. Farage uses this to increase his profile as he is the shrewdest operator on the block.
As for Clacton, there will be a team of people behind him, just like other Constituencies.
These Liberal Progressive twits would rather drool over Beadie Eyes Starmer and The Cretinous Eco Parasite Miliband that will treble all our energy bills with all the “Free Wind and Sun”. ——-To the twits, controlling a border is not something we should do. They prefer a Free for All. To the twits, the Climate Fraud is all about Science, but not science as we have come to know it in the days of Newton or Einstein, or Marie Curie or Michael Faraday. No, it is the Post Normal Science where everything is decided by a show of hands from government funded data adjusters in some phony consensus. To the twits, men in your daughters toilet or changing room is just “moving with the times”. ——-Yes Liberal Progressive Land is where all of Polite Society live and anyone outside of that bubble is illegitimate and must be criminalised as “Far Right Extremists”.
What a repellent person Maitlis is. A truly nasty piece of work.
Agreed. She’s been doing that job for donkey’s years but still manages to come across like some spiteful, cretinous amateur. Channel 4 aren’t any better. This woman manages to effectively max out the cringeometer. Maybe it was ‘Bring Your Mam To Work Day’, or something and she’s an imposter standing in for an actual seasoned pro;
”Channel4 News’ @siobhankennedy4
tries some very limp, factuous questions on Nigel Farage
& Liz Truss.
.
“Are you meeting Donald Trump, are you a big Trump fan?”
Can’t see too many prizes for journalism here.”
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1814339380875571426
Absolutely junk journalism. Dreadful and embarrassing.
“Are you going to meet Liz Truss”, “Do you want to meet her”….
I will say hello if I meet her, I’m a friendly chap LOL.
Maitlis is a horrific creature. A perfectly drawn caricature of the far-left (the only left that exists) – patronising, overly confident, smug, bursting with fake virtue, ignorant, myopic, dumb. The thing looks like a bloke in drag that’s forever looking for the next act of virtuous sneering. Ugly through and through. These creatures are so blinded by their leftist mission they’re genuinely unaware of what it is they actually represent, which is a particularly stupid sort of evil.
Of course she was the protagonist of this infamous encounter, which she didn’t emerge from with any credit: Jordan Peterson Clashes with Leftist Journalist on Gender Pay Gap (youtube.com)
This interview is actually with Cathy Newman. And yes, she comes out of it looking like a complete fool.
So that makes 2 of them.
Farage could have asked Maitlis how often she has been shot in the head…. I loved the bit about her (not) having any friends, Nigel really is a smart operator and Clacton is lucky to have him. Great article: says it all, thanks.
The phrase ” the leader of the free world” makes me puke.
I find it very hard to respect anyone that uses the phrase. It betrays a lack of thought.
Aren’t you hypnotized by the theatrics of politicians jetting around to football matches and to see other politicians putting on their show?
Some years ago, shortly after Jeremy Paxman ‘retired’ from Newsnight my impression at the time was that Maitlis, clearly overshadowed by his abilities, saw an opportunity to ‘fill the gap’. Clearly not sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate his subtleties she missed the point entirely and simply went for the I’m an aggressive interviewer persona. Doesn’t even realise she looks ridiculous!
Good point. Though of course she now gets plaudits from her boneheaded Remainiac cheerleaders for doing just that so she thinks it makes her God’s gift to journalism.
I used to enjoy Paxman and his combative style.
But I now see it was all theatrics.
It was the appearance of scrutiny.
In reality all we witnessed was the scrutiny of the debates WITHIN the establishment.
The questioning of the establishment was indulged from time to time because it was considered unthreatening and so it gave the impression of open mindedness.
The moment the establishment has felt more threatened, it has gone for its critics viciously.
It’s not a difference in style of the presenters. It’s thay the game has changed.
Let’s put it this way. Paxman wouldn’t have questioned the lockdowns, or the masks or the jabs either.
Isn’t it quite usual for MPs to have breaks and take holidays?
Gotta say that Nigel shows remarkable sang-froid, not to say class, in the face of the repeated hostility from the awful Maitlis, C4 etc.
“I’ve got lots of friends here, have you?” he said.
As Michael Deacon points out (satirically) in “The Daily Telegraph”, the MP for Holborn and St Pancras also hasn’t been spending much time in his constituency recently……..
Despise Mate-less.
I clicked the link to read the so called ‘comedian’ Jonathan Pie’s (who is a creation) Twitter feed. Nasty stuff …and they call the Right the haters…… I remember JP ranting during lockdown about the need for children to be kept from school….. His fanatical pop at Farage on this occasion just shows him up to be an illinformed idiot.
In a very friendly – almost worshipful – Newsnight interview with Blair, Maitlis called the peacemaker ‘a man of God’. As though Blair was some prophet just come down from the holy mountain bearing new tablets of the Third Way.
Only Hitchens got exercised about Cameron lobbying in Washington as if he were the foreign secretary of Ukraine instead of the UK. Perhaps Maitlis ought to be more ‘investigative’ about any possibility that Washington might really be prepared to exchange Atlantic City for Clacton-on-Sea.
Someone’s ear isn’t located inches from his head. Trump came within a quarter of an inch of being killed, not inches.
Farage showed Maitless up for the heartless nasty piece of work she is. And all he had to do was behave decently himself in order to do it.
He’s a Class Act.
I though Nigel handled her well. I especially like his query as to whether she had friends.
Maitlis, Maitlis, who the f**k is Maitlis?