Skip to content

100 Climate Scientists Write To PM

January 17, 2017

By Paul Homewood




There is said to be five stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

It appears as if climate scientists have now got to stage three.

From the BBC:


Donald Trump and his cabinet accept far more of the research on climate change than many of their political supporters, say British scientists.

UK researchers say Mr Trump’s team acknowledge key concepts such as the relationship between fossil fuels and rising temperatures.

They are among a group of 100 scientists urging the Prime Minister to push the President-elect on climate.

Mr Trump has previously pledged to pull the US out of the Paris climate deal.

Evolving position

Throughout the presidential election campaign, Donald Trump made clear that the Paris agreement was "bad for US business".

He said the pact allows "foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use".

Since winning the White House, Mr Trump has moderated his view somewhat, saying he now has an "open mind" on US involvement in the pact.

Many environmentalists have railed against his nominations for key posts, accusing them of denying or minimising climate science. These include Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.

Speaking to the media, UK climate experts said there were reasons for hope that the pro-active climate change agenda adopted by President Obama would survive under President Trump.

"It is clear that they actually accept a great deal more of the science of human influence on climate than they are prepared to let on," said Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford.

"They are acknowledging there is a link, there is a potential problem and that’s already more than enough to justify continuing the relatively modest goals of both the Paris agreement and Clean Power Plan."

At odds with the base

Prof Allen believes that the statements of the transition team to date are far removed from the views expressed by their grassroots supporters.

"We’re in a situation where the foot soldiers of denial are well behind their generals," he told reporters.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Environmental campaigners have taken to the streets to oppose some of Trump’s cabinet nominations

"If the blue collar voter that Trump is so concerned about is to change their position to support climate action they are going to have to understand that it isn’t a Chinese hoax plot, and they are going to have to understand that even the people they vote for don’t believe that either."

Prof Allen was among a group of 100 academics who have written to the Prime Minister asking that she push Mr Trump to accept climate science and the global deal that was negotiated in Paris at the end of 2015.

"We urge you, as Prime Minister, to use the United Kingdom’s special relationship with the United States, as well as international fora such as the G7 and G20, to press President-Elect Trump and his administration to acknowledge the scientific evidence about the risks of climate change, to continue to support international action to counter climate change, including the Paris Agreement, and to maintain support for world class research and data-gathering on climate change in the United States," the letter states.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Trump promised that he would "cancel" the Paris agreement while campaigning for office

Other signatories are hopeful that the new President’s practical approach may yet ensure that climate friendly policies are enacted.

"Trump is not as idealistic as several climate deniers are. He has changed his mind on several topics so far," said Prof Corinne Le Quere from the University of East Anglia.

"He has said he is going to invest in infrastructure, he hasn’t said what exactly he is going to do.

"My feeling is that he is actually more influence-able than we think, I would hate to see him pushed in a corner and I would want to see sectors of society trying to influence and push him in the direction where he actually takes the risks of climate change seriously."

British researchers believe that the anti-climate science stance of populist movements around the world shows that scientists must urgently change their own message to appeal to a broader audience.

"For too long the climate change discussion has been about things that will happen in 100 years time," said Prof Allen.

"For economically insecure people, statements about what might happen in 100 years time they just don’t care about, because they know these kind of predictions have been proved wrong in the past and will be in the future."

"Better science is not the crucial thing here. It’s this realisation that the people primarily being affected by climate change are the poor and the people benefitting are the extremely wealthy."


Prof Allen believes, as politicians often do, that the only thing that climate science has got wrong is the message.

In fact most people are much less gullible than he seems to think. They see through the lies and cheating, the apocalyptic forecasts that never happen, the trough guzzling scientists, the renewable scamsters and the rest of this crooked industry.

I have one word of advice for him – start telling the truth.




Shub Niggurath has discovered that the letter appears to have come from our old friend Bob Ward, who is paid to spread global warming propaganda.

Whether Ward actually wrote it we don’t know, but he is evidently at the heart of it.

Shub comments:


Not unexpectedly, contained within was the usual combination of admonishments, pleas for funding and veiled threats one has come to expect from climate science nowadays, and sadly enough from the science establishment in general. The tone is dismally poor and presumptuous, a familiarity to anyone associated with the climate debate.

What’s more, Ward signed on the letter himself though he is no scientist. That close to a hundred professors and leaders in UK climate science would sign off on such a poor letter can at best mean they did not read its contents. At worst, they actively worked with an activist Ward and are happy to be tarred by his political brush.

In large part, letter campaigns do not befit science. These types of documents seem to represent the views of small cliques in any discipline, the kind that will not do science and instead spend time in activism. Such letters, usually on a politically sensitive topic, then get passed around head to head and people simply sign off to avoid confrontation, keep the peace and be seen as doing the right thing. Their prestige is used to score political points or ride the news cycle.

  1. January 17, 2017 12:11 pm

    Trump has read at least some of the climate gate emails. What makes them think he’s going to change his position ? They are approaching this as if Trump is a blank slate and all they need to do is write their agenda on it.

    • January 17, 2017 1:01 pm

      They are assuming Trump is the same gullible “public-sector” politicians who bow down and kiss the hand of the public sector academics whenever they demand.

      Instead Trump is a private sector businessman who holds these academics in the same contempt as he does the taxman, busy body councils or crooked politicians.

    • BLACK PEARL permalink
      January 17, 2017 11:45 pm

      I’m sure Nigel will have fully informed him on all aspects 🙂

  2. CheshireRed permalink
    January 17, 2017 12:15 pm

    Funnily enough only the other day I was wondering to myself where rattlesnake Bob had got to. Hadn’t heard from the slippery tw@ for a while. This letter just proves the old adage that when the kids go quiet they’re usually getting up to no good.

    • Nigel S permalink
      January 18, 2017 9:33 pm

      I woke up this morning about half past four
      Somebody knocking on my back door

      *Says* that’s my rattlesnakin’ daddy, that’s my rattlesnakin’ daddy
      That’s my rattlesnakin’ daddy, wants to rattle all the time

      Blind Boy Fuller

      Your name sounds a bit like a ‘bluesman’.

  3. January 17, 2017 12:28 pm

    I wonder how many of the signatories are genuine old-fashioned scientists, and how many are at the multitude of sciency institutes that pay to get themselves attached to once-respectable universities, such as the Environmental Change Institute attached to Oxford University, which are essentially marketing and propaganda outlets for the Green Blob.

    • January 17, 2017 12:45 pm

      The names can be seen via a link at Shub’s site, many of them are not even scientists, such as a prof of Political Theory, and a geography lecturer, and some are not relevant science, such as Medical Statistics. This is like the 97% consensus, people counting snails and claiming that CO2 is to blame get counted as climate scientists.

    • January 17, 2017 2:34 pm

      Keith Hyams: Keith has published on consent, distributive justice, political justification and the ethics of climate change.

      Most shocking is that many of these “scientists” do work claimed to be “interdisciplinary”, which means that they get their hands on govt money allocated to Science and Engineering research.

  4. January 17, 2017 12:49 pm

    Some insight into Trump’s appointees comes from their jousting with climate inquisitors at confirmation hearings.

  5. January 17, 2017 12:56 pm

    “100 Climate Scientists Write To PM”

    Not really! Signatories include climate salesman Bob Ward, who seems to have written the letter, at least two sociologists (Pidgeon and Whitmarsh), various people from politics departments and people from LSE, and three medics.

    • January 17, 2017 1:41 pm

      Fake climate scientists. So much for the BBC stamping out fake news :/

      • Paddy permalink
        January 18, 2017 7:29 am

        Beeboids are the biggest purveyors of fake news on the face of the Earth – or should I say Plaaanit.

  6. January 17, 2017 1:00 pm

    Here are the “climate science” interests of one of the 100, Prof Catriona McKinnon:

    Areas of Interest:

    Contemporary political philosophy, the theory and practice of toleration, equality and distributive justice, the values and ideals of welfare policy, cosmopolitanism and global justice, political liberalism, political constructivism, the political theory of climate change politics, the philosophy of criminal justice.

    • January 17, 2017 1:10 pm

      In this list of drivel from Ms. McKinnon, where, oh where are any references to a knowledge of “climate science?” She is just one more feminist hack who gives women a bad name.

    • Hivemind permalink
      January 18, 2017 2:46 am

      What is “distributive justice”? A posh word for protesting, perhaps?

      • tom0mason permalink
        January 18, 2017 3:50 am

        Distributive Justice: John Rawls

        John Rawls has had a profound impact on contemporary moral and political philosophy. His most important work, A Theory of Justice, was first published in 1971, … it established the conceptual landscape within which discussions of justice were to occur, at least in the English-speaking literature. You could agree with Rawls or you could disagree with him, but you couldn’t ignore him.
        Rawls’ Moral Concerns

        … Rawls was always deeply concerned about the “injustices associated with race, class, religion, and war.” Slavery was the model of injustice for Rawls, and a good moral theory would not only condemn slavery, but would do so for the right reasons. He was an infantryman in World War II and was familiar with the horrors of war, horrors perpetrated by friends as well as foes. And he was deeply aware of how lucky he had been in many way, not the least of which was not to have fallen in combat. And he was acutely aware of the extent to which that luck was not deserved—it was simply luck. … Rawls remains highly sensitive to this issue of luck, … Out of this comes Rawls’ deep egalitarianism, his desire to see everyone treated as fairly as possible. The Theory of Justice provides an account of what is involved in such fair treatment….

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 18, 2017 6:06 pm

        “Distributive justice concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society.”

        AKA THEFT.

  7. sean2829 permalink
    January 17, 2017 1:06 pm

    Trump may say he has an open mind, it’s a wonderful way to give hope to your adversary without giving an inch. The policies he’ll follow lie in the political appointments he’s making not the things he’s saying. Obama played the same thing game to satiate the fence sitters. Perhaps Professor Allen needs to consider public debate to try and convince the “deplorable” Trump supporters that it’s worth it to give up their standard of living to be on the safe side of climate change.

  8. January 17, 2017 1:07 pm

    Obviously, they are stuck in “wishful thinking”. I am amused by those who think that Donald Trump can be moved, swayed, cajoled, threatened, etc. into doing their bidding. They need to get over the notion that he is not his own man, that he does not assess a situation and make up his own mind.

    I had posted some time ago a piece about his meeting with the NY Times (failing mouthpiece for the left) and the owner, Arthur Schultzburger, known as “Pinch”. He was going on and on about the storms which had hit Manhattan. Trump, said: “Arthur, we have always had storms.” Then Trump spoke about the Climategate emails. I was impressed.

    To their detriment, and to my delight, the left persists in calling him dumb (graduate of Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania; his adult children are Penn graduates).

    Between the election on November 8 and the Inauguration on Friday, January 20, has been a very precarious time. Trump knew that Obama was capable of a lot of dangerous moves, especially if the Narcissist-In-Chief felt picked on by the incoming President. That is why Trump was so gracious about his meeting with Obama after the election. However, those who have not reached the “depression” stage will soon. Their wishful thinking and “bargaining” attitude has kept them from taking in the nominees to fill his cabinet. It is quite the list and conservatives are giving Trump standing ovations. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma is the EPA Director pick. From the OK AG website, in part: “Pruitt established OK’s first federalism unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government. He is a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” To the leftist environmentalist community I say, “Put that in you little pipe and smoke it.”

    Donald Trump campaigned on basically 3 issues and won on those issues: stop illegal immigration and stop un-vetted Muslim immigration; repeal Obamacare; stop the EPA and its war on coal and egregious regulations. When you watched his rallies (I watched on Youtube, esp. his policy speeches, with no media filter), these were the standing ovation subjects. I would not advise the left hold its collective breath awaiting Trump’s cave. He believes it, we believed him and he is the 45th President of the United States.

    • HotScot permalink
      January 17, 2017 2:38 pm

      “To their detriment, and to my delight, the left persists in calling him dumb (graduate of Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania; his adult children are Penn graduates).”

      Brilliant point and one I frequently point out to the froth-flecked, communist lefties commenting on the Guardian CIF. It enrages them even more and they haemorrhage even more insulting bile over their keyboards.

      I sincerely hope Trump reads their comments and takes great delight in rubbing their faces in it come Friday. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no raging Trump fan, but much like Brexit, I was fully prepared to accept a remain vote without complaint (Imagine the grin on my face when I woke up to the news the UK had decided to leave) and I’m now happy to see the Brexit ‘deniers’ have their faces rubbed in it (with the greatest of respect to the innumerable people who voted to remain but now accept the result and now want to move forward). I think the communist left would be best advised to accept Trump’s success and keep their vile thoughts to themselves, and for once in their life, engage in an adult conversation over climate change (amongst other subjects).

      Congratulations to Mrs. May for her uncompromising stance on Brexit today. I suspect we are entering a period of convergence, of two determined leaders of, possibly, the world’s most influential countries in the last 200 years. I suspect Trump’s early salvos were shots across the bows of the EU. Either they sort themselves out and fall in step with the rest of the world or they are going to be crushed.

      And isn’t it interesting Al Gore had an audience with Trump, a man steeped in politics, doubtless playing political climate games? Trump then invites the sober, quietly spoken, immensely knowledgeable, impeccably qualified William Happer to a meeting. Al Gore must be spitting feathers. I wonder if a ‘new consensus’ on climate change is looming? One that says the world isn’t doomed because of man; we all have a lot to learn about the climate before making wild predictions; we can all move forward with a positive outlook and, the science is never settled!

      Here’s to Friday the 20th when a new era of competitive trade can begin around the world. Perhaps it might convince the stagnating, petrified, global elite politicians to focus their attentions on peaceful commerce instead of destructive confrontation.

      • January 17, 2017 3:21 pm

        Thanks for those marvellous comments (insights) Joan and HotScot. I love it when so-called expert climate “scientists” call me a climate denier. That proves how desperate they are getting and they are definitely facing depression.

  9. martinbrumby permalink
    January 17, 2017 1:39 pm

    A list of the first 100 parasites that need to be de-funded.

  10. Tim Hammond permalink
    January 17, 2017 3:01 pm

    “Better science is not the crucial thing here. It’s this realisation that the people primarily being affected by climate change are the poor and the people benefitting are the extremely wealthy.”

    What a backward world these people live in. The poor in developing countries need cheap electricity and cheap fossil fuels, not more windmills in the developed world. And the poor in the US and the UK need lower energy bills, not higher because renewables need big subsidies. And do they think all the renewable companies and those getting rent from windmills on their land are not the wealthy?

    There is a level of delusion that is remarkable amongst our so-called elites.

    • January 17, 2017 5:35 pm

      Good point. Most wind installations are owned by the already wealthy—Nextera Energy, Duke Energy, Warren Buffet, Chevron, etc. Many are OIL companies. Ranchers and farmers love the rental payments. They are one of the largest groups of recipients of government handouts, so it’s an easy sell. Plus, ranchers especially just want cash. How they get it is irrelevant.

      (Why not use gambling, prostitution and legalized drugs? It’s more honest and when ethics are not involved, the highest profit should rule.)

      People have no concept of how economics works. This is how the scams go on and on. Plus, people really love reading fiction and buy into it easily.

      As for the “elite”, they are fully aware of how they are shafting the foolish and poor. They just do not care in the least.

  11. Athelstan permalink
    January 17, 2017 3:23 pm

    Speaking to the media, UK climate experts said

    “experts”…………………………………OK……………… right

    So the story goes, a 100 alarmunists wrote but a consensus of 97% say they don’t know what they’re on about and and anyway…………….. who is that div – Bob Ward?

    Soon enough, only Charlie will be able to afford to write about it, the rest of the “climate experts”………………………………………… will be on the rock and roll, even I’ll dance to that one.

  12. January 17, 2017 3:34 pm

    Here is what Dr Tim Ball thinks of it:

    Dr. Tim Ball: My meeting with Team Trump about “global warming”.

    • HotScot permalink
      January 17, 2017 4:08 pm

      Brilliant Phillip, thank you, I wasn’t aware Dr. Tim Ball had met with the transition team. He deserves every ounce of credit, our gratitude, and the personal satisfaction he can extract from the decades of work he has put into exposing the climate scam.

      And whilst it won’t stop the doom mongers and mendicants, it might at least provide he and his colleagues the opportunity to present their case on the future of the planet.

      In my opinion, without the scourge of the communist, pseudo-green blob, we now have the opportunity to welcome a warmer, more productive planet. If not, we will be better prepared if, and when, the planet begins to cool, once again. And assuming Co2 does lag temperature change by 800 years, we might have the opportunity to prosper with naturally fertilised crops in the face of shrinking agricultural areas and growing seasons.

      Who knows, the green muppets might even be screaming for us to burn everything to increase atmospheric Co2 so they can feed their fat faces!

      Self-serving, greedy, parasitic inbreds that they are.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 18, 2017 1:56 am

        “I wasn’t aware Dr. Tim Ball had met with the transition team.”

        Not just Tim Ball but apparently Tony Heller AKA Steve Goddard – perhaps the most assiduous collector of dodgy “homogenised” AKA Mannipulated data from Schmidt, Hausfather, Venema, Mosher and Co. going.

      • Nigel S permalink
        January 18, 2017 9:42 pm

        William Happer too, looking good! Holder of possibly the best academic tile around ‘Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University’.

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 17, 2017 4:29 pm

      It all seems quite promising, what Mr, Dr. Tim Ball should have mentioned, Obarmy tried very hard to rev up the moonbeams for money ponzi trading Chicago Carbon hawking Exchange with its emissions trading scam scheme, that is, him and his Goldman Sachs chums, thankfully it never sailed and I do hear, from rumours that, they lost a lot of dough.

      Imho opinion Dr. Tim – it’s the UN/ UNEP and WMO et al – which Trump really needs to go after and with all guns blazing. Further to that, for us here in the UK, we need to start getting real, unless we miss the boat, for, “things they are a changin’ ” and watch out NOAA, GISS, NSIDC, Penn State Circus feat’ – Mike and his climalarmist campettes.

      • Nigel S permalink
        January 18, 2017 9:47 pm

        Cool Futures hedge fund would be my choice if I had the money (betting against the scam).

  13. markl permalink
    January 17, 2017 5:23 pm

    Trump is a political outsider who can’t be bought, with his own agenda, and clearly not welcomed in the circle of global elites. His stated goals while in office are not compatible with the Climate Change narrative and he won’t be swayed by the virtue signaling and fake news that brought AGW to the fore. The popular shaming tactic used by the warmists will only embolden him. His recent statements saying he would take Climate Change into consideration are delay tactics right out of The Art of the Deal.

  14. Alan Davidson permalink
    January 17, 2017 5:25 pm

    I’ve seen nothing at all from Trump and his selected team members indicating that their climate change positions are changing. Everything about the promotion of energy resources and pipelines supports the view that there are no concerns at all about atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. The EPA appointment particularly indicates an intention to considerably curtail EPA activities and the linkage of carbon dioxide with “pollution” that has been misleadingly adopted by governments here in Canada and elsewhere. There are also expectations of considerable funding cutbacks at NASA GISS and perhaps also NOAA along with investigations of temperature record manipulation and whether there is really any genuine “global warming” that is not natural variation.

    US Government adoption of positions supporting both no linkage of CO2 with pollution or temperature increase and no temperature increase that is not natural variation, could then result in the slow death of global warming activism in US spreading to other countries including Canada and perhaps even to UK.

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 18, 2017 12:09 am

      That sounds like an eminently, studied and logical progression to me, slowly methodically to de-escalate and subtly alter course, as two ships sailing in parallel, one veers by a half a degree, you don’t notice at first until by half a day passes, with the other ship cruises out of sight.

  15. January 17, 2017 5:38 pm

    Rex Tillerson is actually believed to be a warmist who will pull Trump in the warmist direction—at least by left-wing US papers.

    “Changing his mind” means anything that can be possibly twisted by the press to be in their favor. The fact is, TRUMP HAS NOT EVEN TAKEN OFFICE YET. Really, now we can forecast with certainty what a President will do when he’s not even president yet? Insanity, insanity, insanity.
    (Yes, I expect this from the BBC, most definately.)

    Yes, there is bargaining—with a man who is used to bargaining and coming out on top doing so. He’s not the spineless politician people are used to. Actions mean everything, words mean little or nothing to Trump. He looks at results and does not care how you “feel” about something. His criteria is “does it work?”. At least in his business practices. At this point, that’s all we have to go on. After Friday, maybe we can start to form a bit of an opinion. In a year, then we perhaps can ask if Trump looks like he’s selling out. Patience is a totally lacking virtue in today’s society.

  16. golf charlie permalink
    January 17, 2017 5:42 pm

    Could Bob Ward and his 99 other experts be invited to explain how Climate Science has developed since Mann’s Hockey Stick, and how much it has cost?

    Perhaps a list of their greatest achievements?

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      January 18, 2017 1:22 pm

      their greatest achievements will not take much numbering, circa 0: their disastrous ones will fill a few books!

  17. Reasonable Skeptic permalink
    January 17, 2017 5:43 pm

    My favourite part:

    “”They are acknowledging there is a link”

    Occam’s Razor

    People that denied science suddenly accept science.


    People that wanted to label opponents as fools had to change their position because the opponents are in charge.

  18. January 17, 2017 8:26 pm

    More BBC anti-Trump propaganda. Hopefully he’ll just ignore them, or even better, tell them to f@ck off.

  19. Graeme No.3 permalink
    January 17, 2017 9:39 pm

    “UK climate experts said there were reasons for hope that the pro-active climate change agenda adopted by President Obama would survive under President Trump.”

    What odds can you get on that happening? Not that I think it would be a safe bet.

  20. golf charlie permalink
    January 18, 2017 1:45 am

    Graeme No.3, it is very important that we continue to do absolutely nothing meaningful, as fast as possible, to ensure that absolutely nothing meaningful continues to happen as often as possible. With little planning at all, this should be very cost effective.

  21. tom0mason permalink
    January 18, 2017 3:21 am

    If Mrs May has any sense she should seriously consider selling-off the Met Office and the government stake in the Climate Re-writers Unit at University of East Anglia.

    The money would help to buy some real electricity generators.

  22. auralay permalink
    January 18, 2017 7:31 pm

    100 scientists… I can’t help thinking of Einstein ” If they were right then one would be enough…”

  23. January 19, 2017 2:52 pm

    Surely we could come up with a letter of our own and get 100 scientists to sign it just to show that there are other opinions out there. I have a B.Sc. and would sign it. There a good few at the GWPF who might be persuaded. Who has the contacts?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: