Skip to content

Answers Please, Mr Jackson!

December 29, 2020

By Paul Homewood

 

 

 There’s an interesting Twitter thread here, concerning the Royal Institution Christmas Lecture ;

 

image

https://twitter.com/dodders75/status/1343956557466394628

 

Several have responded with the usual ad homs and appeals to authority.

But particularly telling is reply from the presenter, Chris Jackson, himself:

 

image

 

You will have noticed that Jackson fails to respond to either John’s or my replies, although he does make further irrelevant comments further down the thread.

Of course, he is welcome to ignore the views of anybody who criticises him. But given that he has bothered to respond in the first place, you might have thought he would have easily shot us down in flames without the slightest effort, if facts were so obviously on his side.

The fact that he has declined to tells us all we need to know about the lack of science behind the lecture.

39 Comments
  1. dearieme permalink
    December 29, 2020 10:29 pm

    My wife had suggested we watch it. I said it wouldn’t be worth it, it would simply be intellectually vacuous propaganda. Was I right?

  2. The Informed Consumer permalink
    December 29, 2020 10:32 pm

    No one in the course of human history has demonstrated by empirical, repeatable, scientific means that Atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

    The last to try, and fail, were Berkeley Earth in 2015 having spent $millions.

    But we have been told for over 40 years that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of climate change – Indeed, it’s “Settled Science”.

    In which case, why did Berkeley Earth feel the need to spend millions to demonstrate the concept, if it was already proven beyond doubt?

    Everything climate related boils down to the unproven concept that CO2 causes the planet to warm.

    But as C3 plant life (95% of all plant life on earth) flourishes ~1,200 ppm atmospheric content, one might be inclined to believe Mother Nature is giving us all a MASSIVE clue.

    • The Informed Consumer permalink
      December 29, 2020 10:34 pm

      Aw Pants…….!!!! WordPress did it again. It’s HotScot, not Informed Consumer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. saveenergy permalink
    December 29, 2020 11:17 pm

    Just watched the 2nd child indoctrination program, absolutely appalled at all the misinformation she even managed to muddle the difference between carbon & CO2, a disgrace to science

    • Malcolm Skipper permalink
      December 29, 2020 11:45 pm

      Paul, I’m not on Twitter, but if Prof C. J. has so much evidence for extreme weather he’s struggling to respond to you (irony), could you ask him, as a professor of geology, when “200 deg C (473K) is 4-5 times hotter than the hottest place on Earth” [2m 16s]? Presumably he means 50 – 40 deg C. (323 – 313K), so shoddy science.
      Acidification of oceans may be a technical term for decreasing pH, but when were the oceans “very acidic” [33m 46s]? Again shoddy science.

      In the thread you’ve shown above, perhaps Andy_Kingdon_Geology should ask where the peers reviewers in the BBC, Royal Institution and among Prof C. J,’s fellow scientists were to let those two howlers get through.

      • December 30, 2020 6:47 am

        After such basic non-scientist gaffs, you might have thought that he would never dare show his face at Imperial College London ever again. But it is longer the great scientific institution that it was when I studied there. Since it became commercialised by having, amongst others, the Grantham Institute and Professor Pantsdown, it is now more of a political/propaganda body than a site of learning and research. I now have to apologise to people, saying it was the Imperial College of Science and Technology (part of London University) when I was there.

      • DaveR permalink
        January 2, 2021 2:48 pm

        1988, Aberdeen Uni end of lab dissection skate stuff, the late Dr Bob Ralph gathered us around to ‘inform’ us budding scientists that we should best see planet Earth as an ‘organism’ called ‘Gaia’ and were we aware of the writings of Rachel Carson? Bonkers, but illustrative of the indoctrination that had long-since set in.

  4. Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
    December 29, 2020 11:32 pm

    The fellow has joined the Climate Cult.
    Don’t expect data to get in the way of his positions.
    Lots of education; not a clue.

  5. Dodgy Geezer permalink
    December 29, 2020 11:45 pm

    He does not need to answer your questions. You are heretics, and should be ignored, or silenced.

    It is far too late to raise questions about proper scientific method. The last time those would have been considered was 30 years ago .

  6. cajwbroomhill permalink
    December 29, 2020 11:48 pm

    Al Gore’s “Settled Science” claim is the giveaway flaw in most or all of the alarmist’s pleas because real science practitioners are always conscious of the eternal, vital hypotheses Vs challenges debates and arguments essential for science to seek to establish the truth.
    The truth does exist but science must keep on its quest to find it, but the alarmists have, for political and financial reasons, sought to close the ongoing search.
    They have managed to fool most politicians, with dire impacts on policies, for no public benefit.
    E.G., the UK’s greenhouse gas output is negligible, the Orient’s is vast but still we are forced to pay a terrible price for decarbonisation!

    Donald Trump was right in withdrawing the US from the nonsense agreed in Paris.
    One wonders why there is not much more public and scientific questioning of the worst scam since Soviet Communism and then German Nazism. The Orientals have spotted the “King’s New Clothes”, but the Boris Johnson and Joe Biden dimwits have fallen for the deceptions.
    It may not be total nonsense but it’s not worth paying for, especially with borrowed money.

    • saveenergy permalink
      December 30, 2020 12:04 am

      Mop-head Johnson hasn’t fallen for the deceptions…that would require some form of thought process !!
      Boris’s bint tells him what to think, via the one eye trouser snake.

      • December 30, 2020 4:51 am

        For a thicko he’s doing quite well then. 2 term successful mayor of London. Author of a good book on Churchill. Landslide General election winner and successfully seeing Brexit through. Your schoolboy denigration of him does you no credit.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        December 30, 2020 9:46 am

        Mr Guy-Johnson, can you please justify with some Scientific Facts why you think that the other Mr Johnson’s decision to waste Billions of pounds on de-carbonisation, a misnomer in itself, is a good idea for the people he is supposed to be working FOR.

      • December 30, 2020 10:13 am

        Sadly the whole of the Tory, Labour and Lib parties all share the same policy

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        December 30, 2020 10:14 am

        Mr Guy-Johnson you are easily pleased. Beating Corbyn by promising to do what 52% of us voted for is hardly genius. Doing a deal with EU on the EU’s terms isn’t either. But we have had the pointless HS2, harmful import duties, absurd Covid lockdowns destroying millions of jobs and massively increasing our debt, nine months of removal of our fundamental freedoms, a Green destruction of our economy and wealth, ongoing and increasing restrictions on our choices in what we eat and other areas, a pointless increase in funding for the NHS without any attempt at reform, the bizarre cult of clapping for a poor service we pay £140 billion for, needless destruction of education for millions, a refusal to support aviation, a refusal to deregulate, and at some point soon significantly increased taxes. All the while supported by a campaign of lies and fear and junk science. Yes, great job

      • mjr permalink
        December 30, 2020 10:52 am

        johnson isnt a thicko. he is a very clever person and an expert self publicist Last week BBC showed https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000qq61/have-i-got-news-for-you-have-i-got-30-years-for-you worth watching as it reminds you of when the programme was good and satirical
        And at 40 minute mark there is an interesting bit about Johnson and why they like him on the programme as guest and then presenter. Hislop says “the narrative that HIGNFY made Johnson PM is wrong .The joke about Boris was that this man couldn’t even run a panel show. He couldnt get the cards in order, he didn’t know who anything or anybody was. He was a joke”.
        I think that sums up Johnson completely. you would have him as a dinner guest for the entertainment but you wouldnt want him to try and organise the dinner party. He could not organised the proverbial p*ss up in a brewery. And his time as PM confirms this.

  7. howard dewhirst permalink
    December 30, 2020 12:40 am

    Peer Review is no longer what it was, around 50% of medical publications fail to reproduce results, can climate science be any better … ?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 30, 2020 2:43 pm

      I don’t think most people know that ‘peer review’ is no more than a read through and in the case of ‘climate science’ it is more accurately ‘pal review’ where fellow activists carry out the review. There is no attempt to replicate the results and indeed where replication studies have been carried out they have failed to reproduce the original results.

  8. Broadlands permalink
    December 30, 2020 1:19 am

    Dr. Professor Christopher Jackson responds… “Did you watch the lecture?”

    Yes… but was your lecture subjected to peer-review? By peers who are other geoscientists but who were NOT carefully selected to agree with you)? What a joke peer-review is when the topic is controversial.

    • December 30, 2020 9:52 am

      As we all know, advocacy is the name of the game in climate circles.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      December 30, 2020 10:06 am

      It seems some of the Twitter input was peer review by those who know what they’re talking about that ought to have taken place before hand. Still, when the institution is dominated by latter day Lysenkoists that is not going to happen.

    • Coeur de Lion permalink
      December 30, 2020 12:23 pm

      All will recall the Wegman Report, the only report that did not whitewash the Hockey Stick and which exposed the extent of ‘pal review’ in that dishonest coterie of what we know as ‘climate scientists’ – guilty of ‘gatekeeping and intimidation’. (Montford)

  9. Peter Yarnall permalink
    December 30, 2020 7:40 am

    The lines have become very blurred between “peer review” and “groupthink” !

    • cajwbroomhill permalink
      December 30, 2020 9:16 am

      You point up a decline of tremendous relevance to ongoing research and learning, not to mention intellectual honesty, Peter Y.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      December 30, 2020 10:05 am

      Peer review is simply the start of any process of pricing an hypothesis. Far more important is reproduction of results. As we see with the Reproducibility Crisis, that is a far more important problem than the corrupt peer review process.

      Yet how many Climate Science papers have been reproduced by critical reviewers trying g to prove them wrong? None. And since at least 50% of all science papers are wrong to at least some degree in all disciplines, which 50% of Climate Science papers have been amended or withdrawn? None. That alone tells you Climate Science is no longer doing science.

      • mjr permalink
        December 30, 2020 10:55 am

        it is like linked in … you verify all my abilities and i’ll verify yours .. even though both of us are useless .

  10. 2hmp permalink
    December 30, 2020 9:09 am

    The Royal Institution are at fault here. They presumably had a preview of what he was about to say but knowing parts of it to be incorrect they should have asked him to change his lecture. Fat chance.

    • mjr permalink
      December 30, 2020 11:00 am

      it is more the BBC influence that is worrying. it is their producers and commissioning editors that are involved. How much did they influence the subject matter and the content and ensure that it followed the BBC climate change agenda.
      Dont forget that without the BBC showing the lectures every year the public wouldnt even know who or what the RI were, and the RI could not survive with such anonymity

  11. Phoenix44 permalink
    December 30, 2020 10:01 am

    I see somebody quoting “attribution studies”. They really are the junkiest of junk science. They depend entirely on assuming climate change is having an effect on extreme weather. In other words they simply measure the assumption made.

    • January 1, 2021 8:53 pm

      Jackson quotes this image from IPCC

      • January 1, 2021 10:04 pm

        That looks like a gotcha
        Only thing is I’d kinda agree with it
        but it still doesn’t prove we have a anthropogenic CO2 caused Climate Crisis

        Human influence on the climate system is clear.. Well it Exists

        and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. True I’d guess

        Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems... Yes but is that much changed from other centuries ?

  12. Harry Passfield permalink
    December 30, 2020 10:07 am

    As I don’t do Twitter I was fascinated by some of the emojis used, especially those used by Anson Mackay. I can’t work them all but but I guess he likes running, science, flowers and LGBT issues. Haven’t a clue about the others but when he suggests people should be up to speed with the ‘latest attribution modelling…pinpointing extreme weather events’: I wondered if that was the same modelling that Ferguson used to predict half a million dead from Covid.

    I’m also trying to figure out why Prof Jackson has a golliwog for an avatar.

  13. December 30, 2020 10:18 am

    A Highland MSP came up with a phrase in a northern paper last week which I am calling the Three Ts as it seems to apply to almost everything these days. He said “What I can’t understand is why this wasn’t Thought Through more Thoroughly in the first place.” (my caps.)

  14. December 30, 2020 11:02 am

    Professor Jackson seems to think that it is necessary to watch his lecture before offering criticism (Twitter thread). Why should I want to watch your lecture professor? It seems to me that all you want to do is pollute my mind with the greenhouse gas fable of climate change.

  15. donald penman permalink
    December 31, 2020 12:08 am

    I do not watch live tv so i cannot comment on this program but I get the general idea reading comments on it here. Rubbish as far as I can tell.

  16. January 1, 2021 9:13 pm

    Paul although you tweeted directly in reply to Jackson
    your 2 tweets were not easy to find
    I went into the @dooders75 opening tweet, but your 2 tweets were deeply buried away
    and lastly behind the “show more replies” gate.

    Usually you can expect replies from a celeb if your tweet is near the top
    but there comes a time where the celeb gets bored and stops replying to anyone.

    ·

  17. January 1, 2021 9:27 pm

    Many replies take the tone
    ‘Who are you to expect answers from a scientist ?’

    Jackson gave the lecture as part of public education.
    He is not contracted to answer tweeter questions
    ..but it does count as part of public education.

    The normal mode is that Green activists act in a totalitarian way
    asserting that Skeptics must PAY, but not have a SAY.

    How do skeptics pay ?
    #1 Like all members of the public we support Jackson’s wage & fund his employer
    thru taxpayer grants etc.
    #2 We pay in loss of freedoms and increased costs due to Green policies like banning diesel cars etc.

  18. January 1, 2021 9:30 pm

    One of Jackson’s tweets

  19. January 1, 2021 9:37 pm

    Jackson did participate in the discussion posting about 30 times
    here is a chronological list

    People say he roped his gang in, and it does look like that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: