Type to search



October 8th 2019

By Chris Morrison

Away from the mainstream media, the pronouncements of child prophets and frenzied political activists, the claimed consensus over human-caused global warming is falling to pieces.

No doubt the mainstream media is too busy reporting the antics of Extinction Rebellion to find space for the news that 500 climate scientists and professionals told the recent UN climate summit that there was no “climate emergency”. The group warned that the climate models on which all international policy is based are “unfit for purpose” and are not “remotely plausible as policy tools”.

This is very bad news for the activists, in whatever guise they appear. There are about 100 climate models and over 30 years none have been accurate. And yet predictions of 4.5C to even 6C future warming from these same ineffective models are routinely used to justify removing the one cheap and efficient fuel we have. The science, as they say, is “settled”.

Computer models try to measure the unmeasurable chaos that is the atmosphere. Often inaccurate ground temperatures are used and large suppositions made. As they don’t say in the climate computer modelling business:

Garbage in, Gospel out.

Or as the noted Japanese oceanographer and meteorologist Dr Mototaka Nakamura recently described the models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate – “toys” and “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world.

Last summer 70 Italian scientists told us that “natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. In their view, human responsibility for climate change is therefore “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”.

In their considered view…

“it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today”.

So who are these appalling fellows, hundreds of the blighters all contradicting the massed ranks of the BBC, Guardian, House of Commons as well as noted tv personalities such as David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg. Well one thing leaps out – there seem to be an awful lot of actual scientists in their ranks, rather than the rent-a-quote regulars from assorted geography departments wheeled out on a regular basis by the BBC to comment on the latest climate scare du jour.

People actually studying science subjects like physics and chemistry – people such as Antonio Zichichi , emeritus professor of physics along with Renato Angelo Ricci, also a physics emeritus professor and a former president of the Italian Society of Physics. People who warn us not to sign up to policies of uncritical reductions of C02 with “the illusory pretence of governing the climate”.

It is tempting to note that the 97% (recently promoted to 99%) consensus behind the scientific hypothesis of human-caused global warming is breaking down, but this assumes it ever existed in the first place. The original 97% claim is widely credited to John Cook from the “Skeptical Science” activist blog but has long been ridiculed. Even the Guardian in 2014, at a time when some climate science debate was allowed, published a piece by economics professor Richard Tol in which he noted that the consensus “does not stand up”.

Science is divided on the effect of carbon dioxide (not carbon please) in the atmosphere. Some claim our 3% contribution to the 400 ppm is leading to climate Armageddon. Others such as Princeton emeritus professor and atmospheric scientist William Happer and Greenpeace founder Dr Patrick Moore take a more relaxed view noting that the demon gas is plant food and we need more of it in a currently denuded atmosphere.

Anyway consensus is irrelevant in science.

All that matters is the truth.

Science operates by testing a hypothesis if necessary to destruction. In an era of “settled” science that mechanism has broken down, in many parts of the science community and certainly within the mainstream media. As early as 2006 the BBC met in secret conclave to cement its servitude to the climate activists by closing down debate prompting the writer Clive James to note its determination “that the alarmist view should not be questioned”.

This was really the start of the anti-science, anti-Voltairean phase along the lines –  “I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death my right not to have to listen to you say it”. Fair enough for an individual but an odd stance for a national and supposedly impartial broadcaster paid for by the general population.

The Guardian might have tolerated dissent but last year the pockets of resistance were finally mopped up. In a letter signed by journalists, academics and politicians it was noted that we must not “offer credibility” to those who deny climate change. Leaving aside the obvious fact that climate is always changing, the suggestion is clear. “Therefore we will no longer debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real … we urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing”.

Just how long this virtue signalling anti-science nonsense can continue is anyone’s guess. But out in the real world it can’t help but be noticed that the Green Party regularly polls 2% at a time of peak climate hysteria. That 2% is of course 0% within the usual margin of error, in fact it is nearly 0% on the actual poll.

In France President Macron came over all Euro green and slapped tuppence on a litre of fuel and a year later the rocks are still flying. Even in the UK the fuel duty escalator is a thing of the distant past.

When they come for the gas boilers and the cars and even your future children, not to mention beggaring the developing world, they are going to have to start giving some very good reasons.

Hopefully scientific ones for a change.


You Might also Like