Coffee House

In defence of Nigel Lawson, and his fellow climate sceptics

8 July 2014

2:45 PM

8 July 2014

2:45 PM

Some people find climate change ‘deniers’ the most irritating people on God’s green earth. On her Telegraph blog Martha Gill equates them with flat-earthers, which says a lot for the depth of her analysis. She points to a piece on the Huffington Post by Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (funded by billionaire Greenpeace contributor Jeremy Grantham, who also sponsors an $80,000 prize for environmental reporting – which this article will stand no chance of winning) and says it demolishes the deniers’ arguments. The problem is that it doesn’t.

Those who think ‘deniers’ are a problem and seek to put them down are in doing so misrepresenting the science they want to uphold. Once they said ‘deniers’ did not believe that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas or that mankind was pumping it into the atmosphere, or even that the globe had warmed in recent decades. And so-called deniers never took issue with any of this. Their questions were at a deeper level, but it took years for the media to notice.

You can make a strong case that all this ‘denial’ has been good for climate science. Some of these ‘deniers’ actually found that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s supreme icon – the ‘hockey stick’ graph showing a recent alarming rise in global temperature – was wrong. Then they pointed out that the global annual average surface temperature was not rising as predicted. To some it was an obviously fictitious, mischievous ploy to cast doubt on climate change, a misinterpretation of a minor recent blip in what is obviously an upward trend in global surface temperature that has been going on for well over a century.

But the ‘deniers’ were right. The non-publicity seeking real climate scientists who published their thoughts in peer-reviewed literature knew something was going on with global surface temperatures, and debated its significance and possible causes in unreported papers that only the ‘deniers’ seemed to read. Eventually the pause was recognised for what it is. The journal Nature called it the biggest problem in climate science, and so it is. Something that was said to be a denier’s ploy has now more than a dozen serious scientific possible explanations. The so-called deniers were closer to the science and far ahead of media commentators.

[Alt-Text]


But there is still trouble with climate change ‘denial’ according to Bob Ward. He criticises Lord Lawson for saying that he denies any link between climate change and the weather events of earlier this year. Bob Ward said the Met Office has laid it out. Yes they have, and this is what their report said:-

‘As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.’

Bob Ward also cherry-picks his answer to counter Lord Lawson’s statement that the effect of carbon dioxide on the earth’s atmosphere is probably less than was previously thought. That is actually a fair and scientifically reasonable standpoint to take and were it made amongst scientists at a conference there would be sober discussion. It is significant that the latest IPCC report on climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide does not cite a best estimate, whereas the previous one did. The latest report notes a substantial discrepancy between observation-based estimates of the effect of carbon dioxide and estimates from climate models. This is not settled, there is room for debate.

Regarding the freezing of the Thames in the 17th century and the occurrence of Frost Fairs, Bob Ward says it is a ‘sceptic canard’ that this was due to a cold climate. He believes the narrowness of bridges and not the so-called Little Ice Age was to blame. Actually both had an influence, as did the building of embankments. The Little Ice Age – once thought to be confined to Europe but now recognised to have occurred worldwide – was a definite period of colder climate that had devastating consequences. We still cannot explain what happened.

Few scientists would say that scepticism is not a good thing in science, but somehow those who ask valid questions of climate science are different. Motives are impugned, qualifications questioned. The problem lies not with their questions but with the inflexible and dogmatic way that some commentators and indeed some scientists regard climate science. There is also a major problem with the quality of the scholarship of many commentators who are all too quick to dismiss sensible questions as ‘obviously fantastical rubbish supported only by anecdote and untested assertions.’

Climate science is important. We must deal with it and we must understand it. But it’s complicated. Not everything fits or is settled or consistent. Today’s obvious answers may not be tomorrow’s. Things change, values are revised up and down, and people have different opinions about the same data. Simple answers are seldom totally waterproof. It’s science and science is all about the awkward questions. The ‘deniers’ know this. Some others seem not to.

Dr David Whitehouse is an advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He is a former BBC science editor and European Internet Journalist of the Year.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • NikFromNYC

    That it’s all a glaring fraud was exposed in 2013 when skeptics simply plotted the bladeless input data of the new hockey stick sensation :

    http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg

  • Cyrus Manz

    Finally the mainstream media is catching up.

    Better late than never I suppose.

    https://plus.google.com/communities/105386304309909999553?hl=en

  • Crystyn Thomas

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/7jzBWmpzifc?rel=0 – the proof that it does not exist by Lord Christopher Monckton

    This link says it all in my opinion.

    • obert

      He’s not even a scientist. He’s the deniers equivalent of Al Gore.

      • Crystyn Thomas

        He knows what he’s talking about and talks about it in easy to understand terms. Many scientists would agree. However, the only way human beings are affecting climate change is with the destruction of the Rain Forest and not from the general public.

        • obert

          He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He is not trained in any scientific discipline and has no history of publishing any scientific papers. Moreover he has been called out by numerous scientists that he has quoted as having misrepresented their views.

          • Crystyn Thomas

            The whole issue of climate change is the fact that people are to blame for it. If that is the case then those who are destroying the Rain Forest should be held responsible, not the general public.
            In my opinion, climate change is a natural occurrence that occurs at certain times during Earth’s history. The last time was the Ice Age. I suppose if a government was around at that time they would have blamed people for it and found ways to make as much money from it as possible!!!

      • AlecM

        He’s a mathematician of considerable quality.

        • obert

          He doesn’t even have a degree in mathematics, let alone practice as a mathemetician.

  • ant

    Grantham is a rich nutcase and Ward his paid-for lapdog. The latter was honestly calling for any sort of climate scepticism to be subject to Leveson…Nasty people. Proper eco-fascists…

  • Eric Mcoo

    Bob Ward is employed by $100 billion carbon trader, Jeremy Grantham. R# The right don’t like to admit that.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5799/

  • Eric Mcoo

    Lawson is a 5th column, put there to make real climate sceptics (scientists) look like right wing nut jobs.

    Lawson destroyed the British economy.

    Even Thatcher denied subscribing to monetarism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuCt_ZdG18U

  • Whyshouldihavetoregister

    Even if the climate scientologists were right about what’s going on (they’re not, being variously mistaken and/or corrupt but let’s stipulate), what would emerge from that are questions of public policy. How those are answered are entirely a matter for politicians, not scientists, and definietly not NGOs. At bottom, this is totalitatarianism, expelled as Communism through the door, trying to get back through the window as ‘climate change.’

    • obert

      All the more reason why you should stop trying to bash the science because you don’t believe in the implications that the science has for policy. Why not just attack the policy? It’s quite reasonable to say, “okay, climate scientists, we believe you” but simultaneously say, “Hang on politicians, we will not abide by your totalitarian state solutions”

  • Fraser Bailey

    Everyone knows that ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are a giant scam. I only wish I could benefit from it by receiving large amounts of money to have windmills erected on any land that I might own.

  • swatnan

    How could an idiot like Lawson, and a former Editor of the Spectator, believe all that nonsense spouted by the deniers, and yet been Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Its a funny old world.

    • AlecM

      The use of the term ‘denier’ shows up the writer for being a shallow opportunist with zero knowledge of the realities of this science.

      • miford

        It also shows bigotry – can’t wait to put a label on those who think differently to themselves. This facilitates the ridicule and or persecution of same. I suppose there must have been flat earth deniers and I know there are people who deny that Santa exists.

        • Damaris Tighe

          The use of the term ‘denier’ for climate change sceptics is designed to create a mental link with holocaust denier – ie, to demonise them & close down dissent.

  • Chateauneuf-du-Puss

    The real headline should be “Catastrophic warming panic was created by scientists’*

    *many of them post-normal scientists, i.e. adopt political Leftism first, then tailor ‘scientific’ views to fit.

    • AlecM

      Climate-Leninism……

  • Mrs Josephine Hyde-Hartley

    But it’s Ok to speak for yourself. This cannot be denied – even by the most powerful lobby people. It’s a good job there’s plenty of room for everyone’s opinion – even differing opinions, in reality.

    • Chateauneuf-du-Puss

      Science isn’t, nor should be, about ‘opinion’. Science gains its prestige and reputation because it is — or claims to be — about fact.

      The fact is that warming has levelled off for the past 18 years now. And: this is my seventh year in the Smoky Mountains, and I’ve never had either a June or July here this cool (speaking to you from my chalet dressed uncharacteristically head to foot with a jumper on, and with two layers above the top sheet uncharacteristically on the bed).

      • Kitty MLB

        Warming has indeed levelled off. The solar reduction strength caused by the sun’s rays not been able to keep the earth surface at a certain
        temperature as caused another ‘ ice age’. We had one after an exceptionally warm period of 250 BC to 400 AD and another during
        the medieval period.
        PS- Never leave the Spectator, the place would be as dull as a donkey.
        There are those who have a duty to be life’s Monet painting little
        grey cells with colour.
        PSS- Is the Cat underneath all those layers above the top sheet on the
        bed. A duvet would be easier.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    I really don’t think people here understand how dangerous Global Warming is. In 2 years time we will have no winters, and by 2020 the only place humanity will be able to live will be the Antarctic.

    Shortly after that all life on Earth will cease, and the seas will rise over the mountains and boil. Polar bears will become extinct, and politicians will start to resign OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!!

    And you can avoid all this by just buying some photo-electric generators from me to put on your roof…

    • Chateauneuf-du-Puss

      I’d like to adopt a polar bear. Is canned tuna good enough for their breakfast?

      • Fergus Pickering

        No. They prefer people. That can be arranged.

        • Kitty MLB

          Indeed that could be arranged. We could send Ed Milipede
          for does he not have the big brown eyes of a seal pup.
          Mind you poisoning the poor polar bear would be most unkind.

      • Dodgy Geezer

        Actually, you can take all the risk out of adopting a Polar Bear by doing this through my Adopt-A-Green-Thing foundation. £50 per week buys enough ammunition and fuel to run our ground-attack helicopter once over a penguin breeding ground, killing enough penguins to feed 5 hungry bears for a fortnight.

        Or, if you prefer a more activist approach, you can join my “Liberate the Smallpox Virus” collective and raid medical facilities to release this humblest of God’s creatures, viciously imprisoned by governments and Big Pharma. Only £5000 gets you a balaclava and a pair of approved organic wire-cutters.

  • Jenny_Tells

    Here are two facts: (a) global temperatures have paused since 1998, according to the Met Office, and (b) that during this time, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by 16%. Where is the correlation between the two? I’ve never had a sensible explanation, only fanciful conjectures, as to why temperatures have not risen with CO2 levels.

    It’s all very well to say that the excess heat energy has been absorbed by the oceans. So what happened in the post-war years up until 1998 when temperatures were rising? Has the physics changed, or have the ocean currents altered direction? It’s significant that the Antarctic ice is growing, so do we have global warming or global cooling, or are such events within normal variability?

    From an academic perspective, it’s all very interesting. Where it gets serious is when the political establishment tries to combat the alleged global warming with a raft of ruinously expensive green policies, including the destruction of the countryside and shoreline with regiments of windmills and acres of solar panels.

    • obert

      The view that global temperatures have paused is based an ignorance of statistics. The reason that warming appears to have stopped during this period is because the window period chosen to demonstrate “no warming” is very small, and essentially fits noise.

      If you use a small enough window period you can demonstrate any result you want. Plotting a figure of smoking versus lung cancer rates, for example, you could easily show that smoking decreases cancer risk.

      The reason that 1998 is chosen by those wishing to contest AGW theory, is that only that year, and the strategically chosen final point show this flattening. The same window period applied to the same graph shows 4 other seeming “flat” areas, that exist despite the fact that temperatures are going up over the longer (statistically significant) time frame.

      What you are saying, therefore, does not stand to scrutiny.

      • MrGrylls

        What “strategically chosen final point” other than the present would you have us choose? How do you define a “stastically significant” time frame? Which is your favourite variety of cherry?

        • obert

          First of all her final point is not the present. Second the idea of no warming doesn’t hold if she chooses any year before 1998. It is she who is cherry picking noise to support her preconceived view.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Noise? Is this a term of art?

        • Tim

          There are two ends to a sampling window. The point is that if you have a low frequency signal and high frequency noise, then if you pick a small time window, you only see the noise. It’s actually a considerable testament to the strength of the trend that 1998 is the only year you can choose to start the sampling window and not get a decent correlation out.

      • Jenny_Tells

        The point is that it’s not my *opinion*. I am merely quoting the Met Office, as I have said.

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

        The Met Office collates data from around the globe, and does the statistical analyses. Presumably these guys are the experts, are you a “denier” of their findings? So my comment does stand up to scrutiny.

        • obert

          Well I suppose you will also have read the conclusion of the same report you quote then:

          “The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.”

          • NikFromNYC

            The pause falsifies climate models, the basis for all alarm. Everyone knows this but only one side admits it, the honest side. Only baffoons and crooks now support further climate alarm. There is no fundamental physics behind the massive water vapor amplification of the old school greenhouse effect which is utterly speculative, as you are well aware you revolting propogandist.

  • Peter Stroud

    The basics of global warming, due to greenhouse gases (GHG) is fundamentally simple. The presence of GHG, for example CO2, if doubled, will increase the mean atmospheric temperature by a bit over 1 degree Celsius. This will increase the quantity of water vapour, a much more effective GHG, thus there will be a further increase in temperature leading to more water vapour, etc, etc.. Until we reach a catastrophic increase in temperature: i.e. a tipping point.

    The trouble is, nobody knows if this feedback mechanism is positive, and just how big the feedback parameter is. In fact no body can explain why the water vapour should remain in vapour form etc.. So far, the complex computer models have been wildly out in their predictions

    The majority of climate change sceptics, do not disagree with these fundamental concepts, and Martha Gill is an idiot to suggest otherwise. Though there are a few who doubt the fundamental GHG concept.The sceptics are challenging the climatologist’s ‘guesses’ of the feedback parameter, and awaiting proof that feedback is even positive. This the real scientific method in practice.

    • AlecM

      Sorry, but you’re wrong. The 1.2 K CO2 Climate sensitivity is only valid if no other process intervenes to put cool air onto the surface. There is such a process and it explains events of the past such as the Faint sun Paradox and why we have had nearly 18 years’ no warming.

      As I describe below, the IPCC climate models are based on a clever but simple fraud. There is no positive feedback. It’s highly negative.

    • CheshireRed

      There is no evidence whatsoever of a positive feedback mechanism strong enough to drive ‘catastrophic’ warming. If there was we wouldn’t be here now. Simple as that. The whole AGW edifice is a giant UN/NGO-driven fraud.

  • Bob Ward

    The spirited defence of Lord Lawson and climate change denial by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which campaigns against the Government’s climate change policies, contained a number of characteristically inaccurate and misleading statements.

    He claims that the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph showing a rapid rise in the
    temperature of the Northern Hemisphere over the past 100 years or so compared
    with the last 1000 years was “wrong”. That is untrue. The so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph refers to Figure 2.21 in Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which was published in 2001. An updated version of it appears in Figure 5.7 of Chapter 5 in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, which was published in September 2013.

    Dr Whitehouse claims that the journal ‘Nature’ the temporary slowdown in the rate
    of increase in global average surface temperature as “the biggest problem in climate science”. In fact, an editorial in ‘Nature’ earlier this year described the slowdown as a “discrepancy” and pointed out that “average global temperature —
    although a useful indicator — is not the only measure of how the climate changes”, while warning “from a policy perspective, little has changed”.

    Next, he cherry-picks a quote from a report by the Met Office and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology about the connection between climate change and the floods caused by record rainfall this winter, apparently to support Lord Lawson’s claim that there was no link. Dr Whitehouse ignored the following quote from the same report:

    “There is an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are
    becoming more intense, and that the rate of increase is consistent with what is
    expected from fundamental physics. There is no evidence to counter the basic
    premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy
    rain events.”

    Recent research by Professor Myles Allen has shown that the probability of a very
    wet winter, like that which we experienced, has increased by about 25 per cent due to climate change.

    Dr Whitehouse then describes as “a fair and scientifically reasonable standpoint” Lord Lawson’s assertion that the climate sensitivity is less than previously thought. But the IPCC makes clear that such certainty from campaigners that the value of climate sensitivity must be low is unwarranted given the range of estimates from the evidence provided by scientists.

    With all these desperately contorted attempts to defend Lord Lawson’s polemical
    pamphlet, Dr Whitehouse’s blog provides further evidence of the trouble with climate change denial.

    • MrGrylls

      What a lot of words to say damn all.

    • AlecM

      The IPCC pseudoscience is pea under the thimble stuff, as explained below.

      By claiming atmospheric Irradiance is a real rather than a potential energy flux, then falsely claiming you can apply Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA, to a semi-transparent medium no less, the pea, which is the substitution of 100% of the warming by 140%, is placed in front of the modellers who haven’t a clue they have been deceived along with the rest of us.

      Many people other than me have remarked that the IPCC claims a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd kKnd. No-one has hitherto detailed exactly how it was done. There are many other aspects of bad science. In fact they have got it all wrong, an amazing feat!

      So, just accept that you and your boss were bamboozled by people who were very clever; one of the cleverest bits was 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf in which by asserting with absolutely no evidence that OLR, which comes from a flux-weighted mean of three main emission zones of -18 deg C comes from a real upper atmosphere emitter at ~6 km, the team misled the World for 33 years.

      I feel very sorry for you but my job as a professional has been to correct this scientific abomination so that the people to honour the people who taught me, and the people who taught them back to the Scientific Enlightenment. Fraud must not be allowed to win.

    • CheshireRed

      Welcome Bob. So glad we now have the wisdom and impartiality of your magnificent presence.

    • Epimenides

      Ward has never produced one piece of empirical evidence to back up his hypothesis of AGW. Only computer models. A computer model without empirical evidence to show it is accurate is simply someone’s opinion. Ward is nothing more than a propagandist.

    • foxoles

      This spirited defence of climate scaremongering by Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute, a lavishly-funded alarmist lobbying operation, contains many characteristically inaccurate and misleading statements.

      Finished that PhD yet, Bob? How many years is it now?

      Care to remind us why, unlike AR4, the IPCC AR5 included no best estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2?

    • David whitehouse

      Mr Ward.

      Regarding the ‘hockey stick’ graph that was shown to be inaccurate that you say is in Chapter 5 of the IPCC AR7 report of last year.
      (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf). The figure 5.7 you refer to is one of the latest versions of global temperature variations of the past 2000 years showing a recent rise as well as clearly displaying the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. They were absent in the “iconic” hockey stick which showed no evidence of those climatic changes and had a much larger rise in the 20th century. It is a very different graph. You are rewriting history, distorting the recent IPCC report and being highly misleading.

      Nature did call the recent global annual average temperature “pause” the biggest problem in climate change. It is not a “claim” as you say. Its subsequent comments that you refer to were regarding what might be its cause, and a wider assessment of the parameters used to quantify global warming. It is indeed only one parameter but an important one as those very many explanations being provided for its behaviour demonstrate. The global annual average surface temperature is one of the key observations we have to judge climate change along with ocean heat content as another example, but until the introduction of the Argo array a decade ago ocean heat content measurements were problematic. You are not fairly representing the situation. You are cherry picking quotes, misinterpreting them, and distorting the science.

      The “cherry-picked” quote from the Met Office report saying it is not possible to attribute the recent extreme weather in the UK to climate change is on the first page of the report and is its major conclusion, yet you ignore it! It seems strange to describe quoting a report’s prime message as “cherry picking.” As for your quote about an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense you should look more carefully at the data behind this as it is global data not UK, and also compare the geographical distribution of the record rainfall the UK had in relation to the regions that flooded. The report says there is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events. That refers to the future. Again you have ignored the facts, cherry picked a qualification and ignored the principle finding of the report in question. You have distorted the science, and misrepresented the report.

      You refer to research by Myles Allen showing the probability of a wet winter has increased by 25% due to climate change. It is interesting research. Such attribution studies are speculative and at their very early stages and when you quote them you should not imply that it is a certainty. There are many questions about them. You are misrepresenting the nature of scientific progress.

      You comments about the IPCC and “climate sensitivity” are also misrepresenting the science and what sceptics have said about it. The IPCC vaguer comments and its slightly wider range of estimates about climate sensitivity did not come from campaigners but from its review process. It is fair to say that there is debate.

      You have ignored inconvenient facts, cheery-picked statements, introduced inaccuracies and diversions, and presented an imbalanced assessment of the issues discussed in my post. Their is no denial in my post but your response, and your partial stance and lack of scholarship, demonstrates what has really been wrong with the debate about climate change.

      You have some experience of journalism and indeed of science. Perhaps in the future we can look to you to elevate the discussion so that it could be more profitable to all concerned, and a bit more scholarship and a little less cherry-picking would be welcomed by many I’m sure.

  • kyalami

    And yet carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we are producing more and more every year.

    Odd.

    • AlecM

      You have clearly believed juvenile IPCC physics; this is the real stuff.

      1. There is no ‘back radiation’; that is the atmospheric Irradiance, the potential energy flux to a sink at absolute zero.

      2. For equal surface and atmosphere temperature, net surface IR flus is the difference between the surface and atmospheric Irradiances. This means there is zero CO2 15 micron band surface IR, nor for the main H2O bands. The net GHG absorption is 23 W/m^2. The IPCC overestimates this 5.1x.

      3. Tyndall’s experiment has been misinterpreted. GHGs absorb external IR energy but Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation precludes thermalisation of that energy in the gas phase – it pseudo-diffuses to thermalise at the tube wall.

      4. Because atmospheric processes provide highly negative feedback, there is virtually zero accumulation of energy as well mixed GHGs increase in concentration.

      5. This physics explains why even when there was 14x present CO2 concentration, we still had ice ages. There is no significant CO2-AGW.

      • kyalami

        I bet you few people reading your message had the foggiest idea what you were writing about. I have a degree in science and spend a good deal of time reading up on scientific topics and I don’t.

        Any chance you could put it in plain English? I am sure there are many, including me, who would like to know more.

        • AlecM

          This is a tough subject to master which is why the reaction to the Climate Gate revelations have taken 4+ years.

          In simple terms, Carl Sagan wrongly claimed that a planetary surface emits net IR energy at the ‘black body’ rate determined by the S-B equation. I’m a process engineer and I have measured this stuff: Sagan went wrong because he got the cloud physics wrong.

          The black body assumption heats the atmosphere too much so the dumb modellers with a smattering of physics accepted Houghton’s incorrect claim that the atmosphere is a grey body. They then assumed that in the Sagan two-stream approximation that as much IR went down from ToA as went to Space, a negative heating.

          The net result is to introduce 40% imaginary heat into the system. This is used to purport the imaginary positive feedback. Possibly cock-up became fraud; possibly it was always fraud.

  • miford

    The churches are empty, nobody believes in original sin anymore. We need another stick to hit the population with and a way to make them feel guilty.
    This evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
    The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days by the volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.
    Solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
    The bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
    Keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

    • obert

      “The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days by the volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon”

      Evidence please? Last time I checked out this assertion (very thoroughly) I found that volcanic emissions year on year are 1% of those produced by humans.

      1. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research (2002) Volume: 115, Issue: 3-4, Pages: 511-528
      2. Alan Robock et al.VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS AND CLIMATE, Reviews of Geophysics, 38, 2. 2000
      3. Stanley N Williams, Global carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere by volcanoes. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Volume 56, Issue 4, April 1992, Pages 1765-1770
      4. Haraldur Sigurdsson, Evidence of volcanic loading of the atmosphere and climate response. Global and Planetary Change Volume 3, Issue 3, December 1990, Pages 277-289

      • miford

        It’s a stick to hit the population with and when they’ve managed to convince enough of us of it’s reality they hit us with a tax. Brilliant Black Adder. It’ll be as good an earner for them as the ‘Give us all your worldly goods for a place in Paradise’ trick of the previous epochs. The ‘evidence’ you’ve supplied will have been written by scientists with vested interests in proving climate change is real, and the ‘models’ they use are just – computer models. They’re not nature. What we’re talking about here is nature. I’m all for people believing in climate change, but the rub is when I have to pay for their gullibility with my hard earned cash with an 11% green subsidy on my household bills. Thanks.

        • obert

          If your feeling is that you don’t want to pay a green subsidy, just say it. Don’t regurgitate demonstrable nonsense about volcanoes.

          Incidentally, the references I gave pertain mostly to measurements and not models.

          • miford

            My feeling is its’ a con trick.

            • obert

              A feeling that is based neither on evidence nor reason, as exemplified by your incorrect assertions about volcanoes

              • MrGrylls

                He’s right, though.

                • obert

                  Another one with gut feelings. Probably one of those people who not so long ago had a gut feeling the world was the center of the universe.

                • MrGrylls

                  That used to be the consensus but it was “denied”.

                • obert

                  It was the consensus among those (like you) who based their views on “feelings” rather than “evidence”.

                • MrGrylls

                  How do you know on what I base my view? Does everyone who comes to a different conclusion from yours do so on the basis of “feelings” rather than “evidence”? That is remarkably presumptuous of you, if that is what you are saying.

                • obert

                  You’ve just come on here to defend someone who raised utter drivel about volcanic eruptions on the basis of what they “feel”, so why is it presumptious of me to imagine that someone who defends that rationale, should be any different themselves?

                • MrGrylls

                  I said that he is right about it being a con trick and he is. I don’t give a damn whether you think you have won a little victory over him because he is in error about volcanoes but you are a fool if you think all who disagree with you do so on the basis of gut instincts rather than on evidence. Goodnight.

                • miford

                  Again, it was you who brought feelings to the discussion and now your using it as a stick to hit me with. Your a class act you really are.

                • obert

                  That’s “you’re” and not “your” please

                • miford

                  You’re the one who brought feelings into the discussion…It was the scientists who – on the basis of their measurements and calculations – thought the Earth was the centre of the universe, and anybody who thought otherwise was ridiculed….or worse, persecuted.

            • obert

              ha ha ha. So no, “sorry for posting absolute drivel and nonsense about something I’m clearly clueless about”, then. Your facts are not stranger than fiction. They just *are* fiction.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Peer reviewed evidence seems to mean people who agree with you agree with you.

        • obert

          Much better to use the echo chamber of scientific illiterates on the Spectator blog fora, eh

  • obert

    I agree with most social and political analyses in the Spectator and agree entirely that there are large elements of the left who blindly follow climate science because it implies the need for big government and allows them to take a swipe at their capitalist bogeyman.

    That said, too many of the self professed “conservatives” are blindly reactionary to the class of leftwing people I’ve identified above and therefore adopt the same blind dismissal of the science that the left buy into.

    It seems that large camps of both sides are unwilling and unable to look at the science for themselves and make reasoned and rational choices about it. Instead both sides filter evidence through their political lense to conform to their underlying political view.

    Personally, I find the case for man made climate change convincing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I support what the left advocate as a response to it. It’s quite possible to find the science credible, but not to find the proposed big-government solutions credible.

    • AlecM

      See my post below: the IPCC science is a cleverly constructed fraud. Real data and theory show CO2-AGW is near zero.

      • obert

        AlecM: thanks for regurgitating the usual stuff. Needless to say, your 8-point assertion in a comment section isn’t convincing as a rebuttal to anthropogenic warming theory.

        • AlecM

          Sorry if I appear to be abrupt but it’s obvious to any competent scientist or engineer that Irradiance can do no thermodynamic work, you can’t apply Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to a semi-transparent medium and the net effect of these two basic errors is to increase warming in the IPCC modelling by 40%.

          Net surface IR emission is the 23 W/m^2 in non self-absorbed IR bands and 40 W/m^2 via the atmospheric window to Space; radiative physics 101. As a process engineer I measured and predicted coupled convection and radiation and there’s a whole 80 years of literature showing you need to get to ~100 deg C before radiative exceeds convective heat loss at >0.9 emissivity.

          This heat transfer mistake is juvenile stuff.

          • obert

            Well write a paper then, get it peer reviewed, publish it, put it on a website, lay out your scientific argument in robust pysical terms.

            • AlecM

              I have: this is trivial stuff; basic mistakes.

              I do not need to get standard physics peer reviewed. It is for Atmospheric Science to change its textbooks and teaching.

              My breakthrough has been to simplify the argument so the 40% gain is plain to see.

              • obert

                I’d very interested to see it, if you wouldn’t mind sending me a link…

                • AlecM

                  I submitted a paper to Nature Climate Change explaining how once you correct Sagan’s faulty aerosol optical physics the sign of the AIE reverses and the end of ice ages is because biofeedback reduces cloud albedo.

                  It was sent back in 48 hours because the maths was too difficult for the readership!

                  The second paper, explaining the real atmospheric physics is in preparation. Today’s simplification is the result!

                • obert

                  A link please…

  • obert

    You haven’t actually offered any kind of rebuttal to the climate science in order to support your “denial”. This reads like another evidence free rant.

    • itdoesntaddup

      Your post is certainly evidence free.

      • obert

        A comment section is not the space or the platform to be offering up information on a complex topic like climate change. An article in a respected journal, however, is.

        But if you do feel that the comment section is the right forum for all of that, feel free by all means to provide some evidence yourself.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Here in the Japan Alps last winter was the worst on record. Officially the snow was one metre, but if local government admitted it was really 1.4 metres, stricter building regulations would be imposed. Hundreds of trucks stranded on the bypass for four days, had to call in the Army (sorry, self-defence force) with helicopters. Talked to a guy the other day who told me he was stranded at home for 17 days. Global warming? Gimme a ****ing break!

  • AlecM

    IPCC pseudoscience is a cleverly constructed fraud.

    1. The 2009 energy budget claims 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ really atmospheric irradiance so can do no work, adds to 238.5 W/m^2 solar heating. No professional scientist or engineer can accept this but atmospheric science has, for 45 years or so taught this fake physics, even Lindzen! The error comes from Carl Sagan who, in 1965, cocked up cloud physics and got his sums wrong about Venus.

    2. By incorrectly applying Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA, 238.5 W/m^2 is purportedly emitted from ToA to the surface. Because this s treated in the two-stream approximation as negative heating, it leaves 333 W/m^2, 1.4x real heating.

    3. This 40% increase gives imaginary surface warming and evaporation. The former is offset in hind-casting by ~30% increase in low level cloud albedo, leaving the humidity increase, claimed as proving positive feedback and accumulation of atmospheric energy. They hid the temperature increase to achieve the fraud.

    4. Experiment shows atmospheric humidity is falling and surface temperature is constant despite [CO2] increasing. There is now substantial evidence that official databases are being altered to pretend there has been recent warming.

    7. This is the end of the scientific Enlightenment; only a cull of the inadequates in the scientific establishment who failed to detect this fraud and have pushed it in official advice to politicians will do. The same goes for bodies like the RS.

  • JoeDM

    Great article.

  • FF42

    But the ‘deniers’ were right

    It depends what their arguments are. I have come across swathes of ‘deniers’ who contradict the scientific consensus on man made global warming. By ‘scientific consensus’ I mean a general agreement on the facts of man-made global warming that is every bit as settled as that on evolution through competitive breeding. People who ‘deny’ those facts are just as right or wrong as those that deny evolution.

    If you think man-made global warming a huge conspiracy, you are picking the wrong fight, in my view. There’s plenty to be sceptical about without reaching for the tinfoil hat.

    • foxoles

      ‘Overconfidence is rampant in climate science; I have argued that we have the IPCC consensus seeking process largely to thank for the actual institutionalization of overconfidence related to climate science …

      Oversimplification of complicated climate science and overconfidence in conclusions does no one any favors.’

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/02/overconfidence/#more-16113

    • flaxdoctor

      Get a grip – ‘scientific consensus’ is utterly oxymoronic. Phlogiston, eugenics and rejection of plate tectonics, were consensus positions. Facts matter, not assertions about opinions that have never actually been meaningfully surveyed.

    • AlecM

      Rubbish: see the above post; this ‘science’ is fraudulent as any professional immediately sees. However, because Obama has spent >$70 billion swamping the journals with this fakery, to counter the fraud by the scientific method and publication, has been made impossible.

      Hence we have the internet Samizdat.

    • SteveW

      Which ‘facts’ is it that you believe to be represented by this ‘scientific consensus’?
      You’ll find most of those labelled as ‘deniers’ will happily accept that, ceteris paribus, carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse’ gas; however, it in no way follows from that that the positive feedbacks suggested (and necessary for there to be much of a problem) are real, the fact that empirical evidence suggests they are not should outweigh unfounded speculation that they are.

      Challenge for you, can you list five bullet points explaining what you understand the consensus to represent?

      • FF42

        I’ll stick to just four words: man-made global warming.

        ie There’s a non-cyclical and measurable trend to the warming of the earth’s climate system, due to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that in turn is a result of human activity. A lot of people deny that there is man-made global warming, but most serious scientists accept it as an observable fact. There is a debate about the prognosis and eventual seriousness of that trend. What to do about global warming, if anything, is essentially a political question. There is definitely scope for scepticism, but as I say, it depends on what you are arguing.

  • global city

    One reason why the whole CAGW mania just goes on and on

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85066 (with thanks to Old Goat)

    All Speccie contributors should follow up the various outrageous and sinister aspects of this story… from ‘Climate Change fraud’ to technocratic intent to govern.

  • Colonel Mustard

    Deniers, ‘phobes, “unreconstructed”, etc. These labels all flow in one direction but essentially just represent disagreement. Why do the leftist collective always have to make politics into religion?

    • EschersStairs

      And why does it always turn into a mortal struggle between the forces of good and evil?

  • BarkingAtTreehuggers

    Who could deny that climate policy no longer informs energy policy?

    • itdoesntaddup

      Rather, it misinforms it. If the climate scientists really believe what they claim they would insist on radically changing the energy policy of China in favour of rapid development of its gas resources as the top priority, and they would stop the export of industry from the developed world where it is far less polluting and leads to lower global CO2 emissions, and they would stop the vanity projects that actually do nothing to lower CO2 emissions anyway, such as windfarms built on Scottish peat bogs.

      • BarkingAtTreehuggers

        But but but we are not doing it for the CO2 footprint – we’re doing what we are doing for the Carbon footprint, cleaner air and the bank balance.

  • ohforheavensake

    Well done, David! I’m sure that everybody else will be as impressed as I know I am by your extensive list of peer-reviewed articles on this topic-

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=80

    Way to go, Dave! The GWPF is so lucky to have an eminent scientist like you on tap!

    • Mark

      And his arguments? Oh yeah, that’s right: much easier to play the man. Science used to value observations based on the evidence, rather than prestige and credentials. Sad so many of you so-called science-lovers have assumed the role that used to be taken by the Church and now argue first from authority. O how the wheel turns.

      • ohforheavensake

        Y’see, that’s the thing. He doesn’t actually have any arguments that stand up: and he’s not proved himself expert in the field. So he’s not a credible source.

        • answeeney

          Give it a rest OFFS you’ve got nothing interesting to say – but then, who am I to question your sole purpose in life?

        • Mark

          Splendid. You’ll have no trouble knocking them down then. Start with this: Why has there been no global warming for seventeen years?

    • girondas2

      His arguments don’t require peer-reviewed articles.
      OK?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …man-bear-pig never requires peer-reviewed articles, apparently.

      • ohforheavensake

        Oh, yes, they do…. They need the kind of thorough checking that’s normal for scientific arguments. If they don’t get that checking, then they don’t have the same credibility as peer reviewed articles.

        So your argument is?

        • girondas2

          My argument is that you judge an argument by its merits. If he is in error why don’t you tell us what those errors are.
          So why don’t you?
          I’m waiting.

    • global city

      Somebody still believes in the integrity of that agitprop site?

      I always took to you be a bit of a smarty….. that post may cause me to adjust this assumption.

      • ohforheavensake

        And the article is written by someone who is employed by the GWPF.

        So your point is?

        • global city

          Hey, if you’re making the case that both of these organisations are involved in politics then that’s fine with me!

          Skeptical science is basically Pravda

        • CheshireRed

          Oh Jesus. And?! He has to work somewhere but the quality of his work is not tainted by obvious bias. Every Guardian article is written by activists and sometimes by even the magnificently neutral Bob Ward.

  • brossen99

    Knew RN safe main target merchant ships ?

    http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/ed-milibands-dad/

  • DavidL

    The essence of science is scepticism. The suppression of “inconvenient” data by the climate science establishment shows it to be lacking in scientific objectivity. There’s nonsense spouted on the other side too. But it’s the IPCC and the rest of the climate establishment that tries to big up its scientific credentials and dismisses “deniers” as ignoring the science. Follow the money….

  • Mark

    “Climate science is important. We must deal with it and we must understand it. But it’s complicated. Not everything fits or is settled or consistent. Today’s obvious answers may not be tomorrow’s. Things change, values are revised up and down, and people have different opinions about the same data. Simple answers are seldom totally waterproof. It’s science and science is all about the awkward questions.”

    I couldn’t agree with you more. There are many, many influencing factors impacting the climate and understanding and attempting to predict it is an incredibly complex affair that takes a better mind than mine. But your whole argument falls down because ‘deniers’ (as you correctly refer to them throughout the article) are not merely skeptical; they refuse to accept what nearly all of the science tells us about climate change. If you speak to most climate scientists, or scientists in general, they will tell you it is their job to be skeptical. A hypothesis is there to be disproved, after all. But this is not the tactic the denier takes. Instead, they object to scientific theory without finding alternative hypotheses, or use hypotheses that are easily disproved by the scientific community — hence denial, not skepticism.

    It is absolutely right that we need to be skeptical and not read every journal article or piece of research on climate change as gospel. Yes, there are faults to be found in past research, but the weight of scientific evidence is still substantially stacked against the denier. To the point that their position is comparable to ‘flat earthers’ or other contrary scientific positions we find ludicrous. That is not to say, however, that such a theory cannot be falsified. It just hasn’t happened yet. But if you are going to use science as your justification for denial, you must understand that your position is antithetical to the way it works.

    • jbszeus

      It is perfectly valid (scientifically and logically) to question and even deny in light of the virtual 100% failure by all the major models to predict the past 17+ years of zero warming. At the very least, this fact calls into question the variables accounted for – and more importantly, those that clearly were not. It does not take a PhD in any science to conclude correctly that the assumptions made were incorrect in all of those models. Most of them were not just wrong – they were ridiculously off. Dismissing as “deniers” those who refuse to smooth over this glaring reality is like the Church imprisoning Galileo for refusing to recant in the face of the Inquisition.

    • answeeney

      Maybe one guy who you met down the pub one day held the views you ascribe to ‘deniers’. Bearing in mind though that anyone who expresses the slightest doubt that 1. climate ‘scientists’ are 100% accurate in their analysis and predictions 2. climate change should be the sole driver of economic policy 3. the science is settled and there is no more to learn, are given the label ‘denier’, I would suggest that your view is perhaps being formed from a combination of projection and cognitive dissonance.

    • itdoesntaddup

      The real deniers on climate issues are those who stick dogmatically to the old models and claim they predict the future, and those who consider that de-industrialising the West while bolstering production in more emissions intensive economies is going to save the planet from some climate catastrophe.

  • Gawd

    Part of the problem is that many of the “deniers” are also right wing and their views seem to be shaped as much by their ideological world view as by their understanding of climate science. Their ideological dogma allows supporters of the “consensus” view in the media and politics to dismiss their concerns.

    At the same time, as the article correctly points out, there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that the climate may be less sensitive to increases in CO2 than was previously thought. The world is warming, but not at the rate predicted by almost all climate models. Whether this slowdown in the rate of cooling is a temporary “hiatus”, as the IPCC suggests, or is due to an overestimation of the impact of CO2, remains to be seen. The jury is out. It’s a puzzle, and sensible pragmatic scientists are now debating this in the pages of peer reviewed journals, but you wouldn’t know that from the noise in the media and on Internet websites where people seem to spend most of their time insulting each other and shouting into echo chambers.

    • Dave Andrews

      The “warmists” are the ones who are dogmatic, almost cult-like, in their stubborn refusal to allow any skepticism of the “man-made global warming” hypothesis. They are the ones refusing to allow the scientific method to proceed by claiming the “science is settled.” It is not. Science is never settled.

      • Gawd

        Nope, you both are. A plague on both your houses.

        • HookesLaw

          Thats a pathetic get out. The facts unfortunately have got in the way of supposed global warming, never mind that it is man made.

          • Kitty MLB

            Its not man made, climate change has happened
            since the beginning of time…the dinosaurs
            didn’t die off because of us.And yet we have
            emotional blackmail with polar bears on melting
            icecaps.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Fortunately, you Camerloons are four square behind the global warmingist push, eh lad?

        • Damaris Tighe

          Look, even if there is global warming there’s nothing we can do about it as long as countries like India & China continue to belt out greenhouse gasses.

          The best policy would therefore be to protect this country from rising sea & river levels, etc, instead of wasting vast amounts of money on energy alternatives which will have zilch effect on a global problem (if there is one).

          In other words, concentrate on what we can change & ignore what we can’t.

      • Damaris Tighe

        There is a whiff of cult about it. They change the goal posts by replacing ‘global warming’ with ‘climate change’, a much less specific term which is not falsifiable. They also use the emotional term ‘deniers’ for sceptics, making a mental link between the sceptics & holocaust deniers.

    • jbszeus

      It’s always amusing when someone points to “right-wing” bias. The assumption being that CAGW believers are pure and never motivated by political leanings. That’s obviously patently absurd.

    • itdoesntaddup

      I think you have this inverted. Those who examine the science and realise there are problems with it discover that those who try to defend (and even distort the data for) the simplistic climate models are mostly left wing politically. These left wing politicians then brand everyone else as “right wing” regardless, as part of their attempts to knock anyone who questions their Lysenkoist views.

      • rtj1211

        Not even necessarily left-wing: if they have a nice big mortgage to pay for the next 15 years they might display that most Tory of concepts: self-interest.

        After all, why solve a problem in 5 years if you can get paid to solve it in 15??

        One of those lessons I learned in 15 years in science up to the Millennium, you know.

    • global city

      What is never discussed is that to get anywhere near the efficacy of CO2 needed the ‘scientists’ have had to invent positive feedbacks, and then multiplied their effect fourfold.

    • Alexsandr

      some scientists dont follow the IPCC line

      http://nipccreport.org/

  • LadyDingDong

    When I was young in the 50s and 60s all the summers were long and hot and it snowed in winter. Now summers are short and cold and there was no snow last winter. Where I sit typing this I am reliably informed there used to be a glacier and now it’s just a concrete ghetto of Government offices, Starbucks and Pret a Mangers. Is it climate change or defective memories?

    • Dave Andrews

      It’s probably your memory regarding the summers and winters. As for the glacier, much of the northern part of the U S was covered by glaciers. It was called the Ice Age. Yes, the earth’s climate is in a constant state of change… naturally.

      • HookesLaw

        We are of course still in an Ice Age. Currently we are in an interglacial part of an ice age which is on npast history due top end shortly.

        There have been times in the past when there were no ice ages – its all to do with the creation of continents, solar activity, the perubations of the earth’s orbit and the wobble of its axis.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …all of which your boy Call Me Dave appears to have mastery of, as he kowtows to Brussels’ global warmingist theology.

    • Gawd

      Funny, I remember the summers in the 60s being cold and wet, and yet it never snowed at Christmas. Defective memories loom so large in this “debate” that you would have thought researchers into Alzheimer’s would be using the deviation between the actual record and your memories to measure how demented you were.

      • itdoesntaddup

        I’d love to post the animated GIF I just made using the Met Office climate average data that show that summer rainfall is higher over the period 1981-2010 than in 1961-1990. You can confirm that you should be seeing the doc about possible Alzheimer’s here:

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html

      • miford

        In the 70’s it was always hot and sunny at Glastonbury. I remember the first year it rained, everyone was shocked. Now it’s a mudbath every year.

        • Damaris Tighe

          You might have defective memory: I remember only two hot & sunny summers in the 1970s – 1975 & 1976.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Partly it’s defective memories. Summers in the 1950s were not partcularly warm, except for 1959. It’s jolly sunny today however.

      • Kitty MLB

        Well the summers in the 50s would never have been warm. Apparently
        a terrible decade. Freezing weather, bad food, little boys on bunkers,
        bad dentists.I am sure just as the sun forgot to shine during summers
        that Father Christmas didn’t bother turning up either. I clearly didn’t
        miss much. And where the devil are you Fergus, the weather here
        is not jolly sunny but very windy, cold and heavy rain. I shall hibernate
        wake me up next spring.

        • Fergus Pickering

          The fifties was fine for me for I was but a lad. But there WAS plenty of rain. Like today in fact. It will be better tomorrow.

  • Dave Andrews

    the last 20-30 years of climatology will go down as one of the darkest periods ever for science.

    • Kitty MLB

      I see its no longer called global warming but climate change.
      That is almost like admitting that the earth goes through
      periods of hot and cold every thirty years.And that it has done so since the beginning of time.And that us mere humans gave no influence.It may also have a little
      to do with the gulf stream, jet stream, moon etc..
      But dont tell the lefties who love a spot of emotional
      blackmail.

      • rtj1211

        Onto those 30 year oscillations are also added oscillations of longer time periods, be they 50 – 70 years, those of a couple of centuries, several centuries and into the millenia.

        We really have only been studying climate scientifically for a few seconds of climate time and only in the past 40 years have we developed measurement suites of sufficient consistency and accuracy to start even having a proper temperature record.

        It’s not very sexy to say: ‘collect data rigorously for 200 years’, but actually that’s what is needed most of all.

        • Alexsandr

          we are in the middle of an ice age, a warm period in the ice age. We may find a mile high ice sheet over the UK again -we dont know
          or we may be exiting the ice age.
          we dont know

    • global city

      It has been an activist/political assault on science itself

      • http://FauxScienceSlayer.com/ FauxScienceSlayer

        Carbon climate forcing has been a rigged three sided debate between the Darth BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmists, and two sides are WRONG.

        See….”Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami”….

        at OMSJ(.)org/blogs/truth-origami

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Yes, this will be known as a shameful era, and a manifestation of the leftist totalitarians’ zeal to (illegitimately) use all means to control thought, speech, liberty, livelihood and life itself .

    • telemachus

      It’s time for society to interpret and update the legal system to charge global warming deniers with criminal and moral negligence

      *

      Global warming and climate change deniers in the scientific community are suppressing the truth that something awful is coming earth’s way. Therefore, like the truth-quashing researchers in Italy, they should be locked up

      Remember locking away critics of the Soviet state under communism brought them to sanity

      • Ian Walker

        An excellent idea. I’m fairly sure that such a charge could be brought against socialists as well, who’ve wreaked misery upon countless millions with their dogma.

      • global city

        What a good idea! Remember – Climate Justice!

        Remember – Climate Justice is the new call…. now you don’t have to accept the bogus science.

      • CheshireRed

        By Christ you’re one heck of a penis.

      • Cosmo

        Now I’m convinced “man made” climate change is a load of left-wing group-think bollox.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        One the Big Climate Lie has gone the way of the Soviets, who or what are you going to copt next?

      • Fergus Pickering

        And communismm continued to flourish as the gren bay tree while te wicked artits and novelists died in obscurity, the bastards.

  • Mike Oddpiece

    The field of climate science is dominated by a group of people who fit the description of a sub-set of humanity that will not disavow a belief they are paid to believe.

    • HookesLaw

      Climate science is an oxymoron. No one understands climate.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …particularly not your heroes, the global warmingist envirowhacko Cameroons.

      • Kitty MLB

        That’s the point Hooky. We only know what’s been happening to our climate over the past couple of hundred years ( or around about ) apart
        from the odd historical information. The climate has been with us since
        the moment this planet was formed. Well actually before that in terms
        of the universe. We are just little dots in the midst of time and are not meant to understand this as much, as we don’t understand the big bang.

        • Fergus Pickering

          What went bang? I’ve never understood how Nothing could go bang.

          • Kitty MLB

            You perfectly understand, dear Fergus. Nothing could indeed
            go bang, without there being something beforehand
            There must be a beginning. And what was there in the beginning. Our scientists who believe they are the font of
            all knowledge will never be able to tell you.

      • rtj1211

        Actually, a lot of features of the climate system are understood quite well.

        What isn’t available is a computer model which can predict the future accurately.

      • global city

        I’ve just inspired telemachus.

        The new call is for ‘Climate Justice’

        … no need for science at all now, just a bleedin heart and a dumb mind.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here