Climate Revelations

It's a Mystery

Climate protesters shout loudly that the planet is going to hell in a handcart. These suggestible people cite claims made by vested interests which are always demonstrably incorrect. See Koonin ( ‘Unsettled’, Steven E. Koonin, BenBella Press, 2021, ISBN: 9781950665792) and a useful video here.

Examples of the metrics protesters use are: storm frequency, arctic/antarctic ice coverage, food production, mortality due to natural events, heat waves, polar bear populations, flooding, coral reefs, hurricane and tornado frequency inter alia. Examination of these IPCC data all show either an unchanged or improving picture. Troposphere temperature and sea levels have been rising in a slow but erratic manner since the end of the Little Ice Age in the middle of the 19th century. Incidentally the IPCC still ludicrously refuses to recognise the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age despite the evidence of worldwide occurrence here. Other shortcomings of the AR6 process have been documented, see here inter alia.

The latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) has given up on its previous extreme scenario (AR5) and now predicts an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) in the range 2.5℃ to 4℃ per atmospheric CO₂ concentration doubling from pre-industrial levels (reckoned about 520 ppm). Recent peer reviewed work claims this is likely too high here and here. This is a big deal. With an ECS of 2℃ or less the 'climate emergency' and Net Zero go away.

This more sober scientific assessment is not reflected in the summary for policy makers, which doubles down of the imminence of Armageddon. There is a disparity between the claims and tone of the scientific projections and the summary for policy makers. Why has the MSM not drawn attention to this? Why do investigative journalists not do their job? Why do science correspondents not do their job? On any other aspect of government policy the MSM is all over it, all too eager to be aggressively critical, quite rightly, but on this issue there is near total submission, with one or two honourable exceptions. Why?

Questions must also be asked of the scientific and professional institutions. They uniformly support government policy in a low key way, whilst individuals not directly involved remain suspiciously quiet, with a handful of honourable exceptions. Those who do speak out against the orthodoxy tend to be emeritus. These days academic research is funded by government, and tends to go to the topic de nos jours. This has a corrosive effect on science, which by often fractious dissent gets closer to the truth. This, of course, in anathema to policy makers who demand certainty. Thus we observe the 'science' is 'settled' meme. Scientists and engineers are also human beings with families, mortgages and careers. Unfortunately this funding model has a stifling effect on legitimate doubt or criticism, which is the sine qua non of science. Anyone brave enough to dissent is a ‘denier’ and must be cancelled in the modern woke tradition.

Formerly science used to inform policy. The situation is now turned on its head: policy now informs science.

This will not end well.

                                            -||-

The following quotations lay bare the shocking attitudes and openly held beliefs of certain elites who hold democracy in contempt.

Their objective of political globalisation uses the climate agenda as a useful tool, and are quite willing to lie and deceive to scare the public into compliance.

"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models".

"The models are convenient fiction that provide something useful."

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.

The Club of Rome

The First Global Revolution. A report by The Council Of The Club Of Rome, Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider, Random House, Inc. Pantheon Books (1991)

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balances between being effective and being honest."

Steven Schneider Stanford Professor of Climatology, Lead author of many IPCC reports.
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."

Sir John Houghton First chairman of the IPCC
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Paul Watson Co-founder of Greenpeace
"We have got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

Timothy Worth President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart former Canadian Minister of Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of catastrophe."

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

We often hear that the 'science' is settled or that there is a consensus (as if such a thing exists in Science). Well, they want us to believe their propaganda so if you got this far, having read the above quotes from prominent climate alarmists, let us for once take them at their word and recognise them for the charlatans that they are. After all, if even the zealots do not believe their own 'climate emergency' rhetoric why should we? As a useful postscript to all this I point the reader to an article by Mark J Perry who points out that not a single climate prediction in 50 years has proved correct. He lists 50 failed predictions in the 50 years, here. OK, these are not predictions based on any science, how could they be? They are merely lazy utterances by the carpetbaggers who seem to populate this field, with the examples I have provided inter alia. Richard Feynman explained the scientific method for the layman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." A prediction central to the whole climate emergency meme and common to all the climate models is that there must be a progressive tropospheric warming, particularly enhanced in equitorial regions. Alarmists desperately thrash about trying to explain the complete ABSENCE of any such equitorial warming. Let's put them out of their misery. Let's channel Feynman. The theory is wrong. Get a new theory.

Let's broaden the scope and provide some context to consider the attitudes of the so-called elite and their intentions for governance of the hoi-polloi in the future. Take a look at the outpourings of this fine collection of the human condition and be afraid - very afraid for your children's future if these prize specimens get their way.

Top