Skip to content

Tara Shine–Environmental Activist

January 5, 2021

By Paul Homewood


 Tara Shine for the International Institute for Environment and Development.jpg

Dr Tara Shine, who presented the final Royal Institute Christmas Lecture, describes herself as an “Environmental Scientist”, a title which always lights up my BS button.

So just who is she, what are her qualifications and what experience has she?


This is how her website presents her:







In short, she is not a “scientist” at all, which should surely be the first requirement of anybody presenting the Christmas Lecture, the purpose of which is to present scientific topics.

She is nothing more than a policy advisor/environmental activist/TV presenter. Her main motivation is clearly political, as her website headline about “fairness” makes abundantly clear.

It is utterly disgraceful that the BBC should invite her onto a programme, with the sole intention of brainwashing young children.

  1. Joe Public permalink
    January 5, 2021 11:48 am

    Well spotted, Paul.

  2. Penda100 permalink
    January 5, 2021 12:03 pm

    Tara Shine is an activist whose entire source of employment and presumably income comes from Climate Alarmism. She is therefore a parasite living on the efforts of others.

  3. January 5, 2021 12:04 pm

    Let’s ask them to invite Dr John Christy to present next year to restore balance. Here is his lecture ready for transmission:

  4. January 5, 2021 12:06 pm

    Typical Biased Broadcasting Corporation propoganda. How easy would it be for them to carry out their dissembling if they had no public money pouring into their coffers I wonder?

  5. LeedsChris permalink
    January 5, 2021 12:08 pm

    Well spotted. I grow ever-more worried about the world we are becoming – in the ‘old days’, not so long ago, as a child I watched these Christmas Lectures and other programmes on BBC2 and these were presented by ‘proper’ experts and scientists. Now we just get ‘gobby’ and ‘pushy’ advocates of extreme positions. At a time when proper knowledge and learning should be widely available and when intellectual challenge and test should be better than ever, we are a world falling into the hands of ‘feelings’ and ’emotion’ and ‘politically correct’ ways of doing things. It is a new intellectual dark age that is coming. For years I have had a growing feeling that we are living like the Romano-British did about 410AD, aware that the world is collapsing… and perhaps not yet realising that in one generation all will be back to mud huts and poverty..

    • January 5, 2021 6:27 pm

      Chris! Interesting you thought so. There is a brilliant series about the fall of civilizations on youtube. This is brillantly researched and presented no doubt on a shoe string. Compare that to the ever so woke diet we are treated by the PCBBC whenever at great expense they enlist one of the pc approved” to lead a documentary on something historical.

      The first episode is about the incredible politics behind the collapse of Roman Britain :

      • Andrew Holt permalink
        January 5, 2021 8:02 pm

        Excellent series, the Easter Island episode is a revelation.

  6. Mack permalink
    January 5, 2021 12:13 pm

    And, whilst the BBC continues to shovel activist nonsense, masquerading as scientific fact, down our throats, I note that You Tube have just shut down the Talk Radio channel on their platform… for broadcasting ‘facts’ that run counter to the narrative that their masters would prefer you to view. I shall miss witnessing Julia Hartley-Brewer’s daily dissections of clueless cabinet ministers, green fantasists and Covid panickers. Propaganda, house arrest and censorship…2021 is shaping up to be another very grim year for anyone displaying the ability to think critically, demonstrate historical knowledge or follow the scientific method.

    • spetzer86 permalink
      January 5, 2021 3:20 pm

      I’d look to Rumble, BitChute, or one of the other more independent video sites for content. At least while they’re allowed to continue.

  7. Ian Magness permalink
    January 5, 2021 12:13 pm

    Watching these three lectures, you are struck my the unerring, huge smiley faces and fixed grins of the three presenters. My (Earth Sciences) lectures at university weren’t like that at all – they weren’t meant to be – they were serious, difficult at times and designed to make you think and study. Laughing occurred but was incidental.
    Personally, I find the relentless happiness uncomfortable and untrustworthy. It’s as if you are in a PR presentation, delivered with religious fervour, aimed at getting you to part with money but be deliriously happy about it. Whether these presenters were real scientists or not to begin with, it strikes me that they have just morphed into PR professionals for their ignoble cause.

    • January 5, 2021 12:24 pm

      Good points Ian, but “PR professionals” is ultimate oxymoron! I recall 2 good bits of advice from a business book back in the 70s. 1. ‘Don’t waste your company’s money on PR people, if you are doing anything worthwhile then the press will find out naturally’. 2. ‘If all else fails, try honesty’.
      And it’s impossible to take any individual seriously who has ‘Vision’ and ‘Mission’ on their website. She’s obviously a legend in her own lunchtime.

      • Mad Mike permalink
        January 5, 2021 3:16 pm

        I think that was from a guy called Townsend who turned around Avis rent-a-car. I saw a video of hime long ago and he had some quite radical ideas like doing away with HR departments as they stopped you seeing the the original thinking people that you wanted to see, and employ, because they didn’t tick the boxes that HR had constructed. He employed people to look after basic HR functions but they were dotted around the organisation so they wouldn’t meet or they would get together and create a HR department which didn’t want. He also recognised that the people you needed to create or turn around companies, virtually the same thing, were no good at running a company on a day to day basis so he either gave them sabbaticals or asked them to create something. It must have been all of 40 years ago, probably more, so his ideas were quite ground breaking at that time.

      • January 5, 2021 4:02 pm

        That’s the one. Many thanks for dusting off my memory banks! I also recall the piece about not having reserved parking spaces at offices. If you were good enough then you would be in early enough not to need one. Very radical thinking back then and even today. His views on personnel (as they were then called) still rings true today. You only need them if your line managers are useless, viz. the NHS and any other state concern you care to mention.
        Looking back at Townsend’s views from today he was some visionary.

    • January 5, 2021 12:28 pm

      You’ve got it right, Ian – religious fervour it is. I’m studying the history of the success and fall of ancient civilisations and the one consistency with their success was that they were held together with religion. Whatever we might think about religion in the 21st century, the fact is that is has virtually disappeared and there is a need for a replacement. Climate seems to be the new religion. Very worrying, since religions are based on faith and not fact. Sums up the climate brigade, really.

    • January 5, 2021 12:49 pm

      Freedom from religious and political persecution is a recent blip in history, and only in our small part of the world, maybe such persecution is the natural order, and we will discover how it is for the majority in the world.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        January 5, 2021 5:34 pm

        There is a quote attributed to Chesterton that “when people stop believing in God they don’t then believe in nothing; they believe in anything”.

        Without getting into a deep theological argument about defining “God”, there is more than a grain of truth in this saying. Perhaps if we re-phrased it to say that when a boat loses its anchor it doesn’t just sit there it becomes at the mercy of wind or tide that would be more “acceptable” to non-believers but it does seem to me that in the last half-century or so humankind (in the “west” especially) has become increasingly rudderless and it shows.

    • January 5, 2021 6:30 pm

      Jackson has a PhD in Basis Modelling…. the smoke and mirrors end of Geological sciences. Tawa…well she has a PhD in wishywashy geography. I did not have the strength to go as far as No 3!

  8. January 5, 2021 12:26 pm

    It’s fascinating how these devout eco evangelists always ‘travel the globe’ telling people how to save the planet….by not travelling….

  9. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 5, 2021 12:30 pm

    When I was a good deal younger (I think it was in B/W!) I remember really enjoying one of the lectures where a real scientist demonstrated and explained the gyroscope phenomenom. I doubt Dr Shine would even know what one was.

  10. January 5, 2021 12:33 pm

    Maybe the target is wrong in this instance, it was presumably the Royal Institution that selected the speakers, and it inevitably has gone green-woke, as has the Royal Society, as revealed when an activist-journalist (Gaia Vince) won its once prestigious annual “science” book prize.

  11. cajwbroomhill permalink
    January 5, 2021 12:35 pm

    Formal objections on this series to the BBC and its new Tim Davie re the prostitution of these lectures is called for, supported by detailed complaints as exemplified here.

    Who could most usefully present these?

    • yonason permalink
      January 6, 2021 4:59 pm

      Soliciting volunteers for career suicide? But, yes, you’re correct about the problem, of course.

  12. January 5, 2021 1:20 pm

    ‘…has taken her across the seven continents of the world…’

    Another of the been-everywhere types that conveniently forgets what made that possible.

  13. Broadlands permalink
    January 5, 2021 1:38 pm

    To read about what Tara has done go here:

    Her peer-reviewed research papers provide little in the way of credibility for her subsequent rise to fame as an indoctrinator of clueless Greens. She is certainly eligible for the prize in the Greta Thunberg look-alike contest.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 5, 2021 5:47 pm

      “Climate justice” is clearly political, not scientific. It’s also just stupid and a childish attempt by socialists to politicise climate.

  14. Yarrum permalink
    January 5, 2021 1:44 pm

    Ian is right, these smiley happy green loons are in it for their own benefit. The question surely is, what idiots are paying them for doing nothing worthwhile.

    • yonason permalink
      January 6, 2021 5:06 pm

      “…what idiots are paying them for doing nothing worthwhile[?]”

      My guess – those for whom the return on the destruction of Western Civilization offsets apparent squandering of resources on fools. So, the question then becomes, who would benefit from our demise?

  15. It doesn't add up... permalink
    January 5, 2021 1:47 pm

    Ta-rah, chuck!

  16. George Hayter permalink
    January 5, 2021 2:17 pm

    I’m a sceptic like you but if she has a BSc in Environmental Science and a PhD in Geography from the University of Ulster, surely she has the right to call herself a scientist

    • REM permalink
      January 5, 2021 4:00 pm

      I agree with you, in that she she has certainly studied and qualified to become a scientist, but I think it depends on whether she actually practices anything scientific now as to whether she merits the description. If she does, she is. Personally, I would also like to know whether her work has been peer-reviewed, preferably by non-activists with no axes to grind.

    • Mad Mike permalink
      January 5, 2021 4:52 pm

      The Science council gives their criteria for being called a scientist

      “A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.”

      You can judge for yourself whether she qualifies or not but it seems those 2 qualifications alone do not qualify her in themselves.

    • January 5, 2021 4:54 pm

      I would say that you can’t be a scientist at the same time time as being an environmentalist, due to conflicts of interest, similarly for conservationists. As for geography, any old tripe will do, as revealed by many of its most vocal activist members, I wonder how many of them could read and understand a topographical map.

      • Mad Mike permalink
        January 5, 2021 6:00 pm

        Geography was always regarded as an easy degree and it was common for anyone aspiring to become a “Blue” at Oxford or Cambridge to study geography and employers understood that. It was not a difficult degree and left plenty of time for training.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 5, 2021 5:55 pm

      I agree but she’s obviously Inot a distinguished scientist who has added anything of note to science. She’s just an activist, with no great grounding in the physical sciences would allow you to properly understand what she evangelises.

      What exactly is the University of Ulster? Its ranked 601 globally and 93 nationally by the Guardian so not exactly a place for star performers perhaps?

      • Duker permalink
        January 6, 2021 12:45 am

        From Wikipedia her PhD thesis.
        ‘An integrated investigation of the ephemeral wetlands of eastern Mauritania and recommendations for management.
        Shes really only a ‘science communicator’, not scientist, with a background in Ecology and Conservation.
        Her publication list is here
        Her original research emphasis is on ecology of wetlands in Mauretania not climate science where she now works on ‘policy’

      • dennisambler permalink
        January 6, 2021 10:56 pm

        “What exactly is the University of Ulster?” Wiki:
        “Established in 1968 as the New University of Ulster, it merged with Ulster Polytechnic in 1984, incorporating its four Northern Irish campuses under the University of Ulster banner.”

    • January 5, 2021 6:45 pm

      George, you are absolutely correct in the observation that she can indeed call herself a “scientist, as can I and as a scientist I can challenge her on her knowledge, the source of the data she used, her interpretation of that data and also her scientific integrity.
      Jackson still has my head reeling but her presentation contained some serious errors and she also told falsehoods for which she cannot be excused from doing because as you say, “she is a scientist”.
      The only other explanation is that she is scientifically illiterate and in which case how and why is she allowed to pollute children’s minds with her distortions or lack of knowledge and understanding about well established empirical data based science?

      • Duker permalink
        January 5, 2021 7:20 pm

        Australias Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel is an Electrical Engineer at the PhD level and with a research background. Just the person you would think to apply critical thinking to whole de- carbonisation circus. Unfortunately he admitted he had no previous interest in the Power systems side of electrical engineering and his research electrical background was in micro currents in neuroscience.
        However he at least does raise ‘some cautions’ about the rush to renewable, but only a bit so he survives in his job
        An imperfect but practical mix of renewable and conventional power sources is essential if the world is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in a timely manner, writes Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 5, 2021 9:43 pm

        PMFB: You’re getting close: What the heck is a ‘scientist’ – and why should we call them such? (Or be in thrall to them).

        It may well be that Shine is a certified ‘scientist’ (a generic term) but does she know the laws of thermodynamics or the construct of GCMs or the difference between weather and climate (to be quite basic – and quite obviously, not).

        Personally, I doubt any of these. She is no Lindzen, with his broad knowledge of atmospheric physics. (Yet, Lindzen gets little traction compared to the likes of ‘Climate Love Island’s’ Shine.

      • Duker permalink
        January 6, 2021 1:01 am

        Shine did ‘discover’ something – along with others. Nile River Crocodiles in Mauritania.
        In the usual breathless hyped way these things are done, as they are widespread across central and sub Saharan Africa being well known in every African wildlife doco

        “BBC 2 Natural World documentary, Lost Crocodiles of the Pharaohs.

  17. theguvnor permalink
    January 5, 2021 2:23 pm

    Interesting piece here about government by hoax mainly in respect of the ‘virus’ and it’s use of aunty to reinforce and propagate its goals:

  18. A man of no rank permalink
    January 5, 2021 2:26 pm

    Are we too late to forward dear Tara for this year’s GWPF’s Emma award?

    • January 5, 2021 6:49 pm

      Jackon beats her on melanin……you see in the game of woke trump there is a hierarchy and melanin trumps genitalia. The well to do up middle class vegitarianfeminazis are only just realizing it after ruling the victim hierachyfor a good 10-15 years.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 5, 2021 9:47 pm

        “…game of woke trump…” Did you mean, ‘Woke anti-Trump’?
        Trump is far from woke. Thank goodness.

  19. iananthonyharris permalink
    January 5, 2021 2:58 pm

    I have complained to the BBC about Jane Burston’s 15 minutes global warming propaganda slot this morning and asked when they are going to give an equivalent amount of airtime to a response from the GWPF. Don’t hold your breath!

    The BBC’s one-sided left/liberal equality/diversity agenda as against the BBC Charter of neutrality has really gone OTT and more and more are complaining about the one-sided agenda promoted by a small minority of Islingtonian left-liberal wokeists.

    Keep up the good work!


    Ian Harris

    PO21 1HW

  20. iananthonyharris permalink
    January 5, 2021 3:05 pm

    And then there was Jane Burston’s 15 minute Global Emergency slot on BBC4 this morning. I have emailed the BBC asking if they would give a similar slot to a spokesman from the GWPF. Don’t hold your breath!

  21. NoviceJohn76 permalink
    January 5, 2021 3:35 pm

    The worrying aspect of this unfortunate situation is that the articulate, yet ignorant people in power (BBC), rely upon power and prestige seeking people like Ms Shine, to supply them with outrageous “information”, that they can use to make money.
    The other frightening aspect is that large organisations (Google) give the bright youngsters their head, without any form of checking mechanism or supervision. This leads to the wizz- kids racing away, with wild ideas that make no sense in real life.

  22. Curious George permalink
    January 5, 2021 3:48 pm

    The time is out of joint. Accept it, or fight it.

  23. January 5, 2021 4:03 pm

    “In short, she is not a “scientist” at all”
    Good one Paul

    It just keeps getting weirder and weirder

  24. 2hmp permalink
    January 5, 2021 4:13 pm

    There is great momentum behind the politics of environmentalism and the BBC is completely taken in by the concept. Why is it that the science of climate is son unacceptable to the elitists ?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 5, 2021 5:58 pm

      The BBC should not be taking a political position at all. It is a clear breach of its Charter. It hides behind “the science” but science is not politics. It seems to no longer recognise that.

  25. mjr permalink
    January 5, 2021 4:20 pm

    paul – off topic … but just come across this re VLSFO fuel for ships. might be of interest

  26. January 5, 2021 6:20 pm

    Paul, does the BBC decide who will present at the lectures? I ask because this is a supposedly independent organisation.

    I was taken to write a critique of the slide which you showed yesterday outlining the synopsis for the talk. A more blatant misrepresentation of empirically supported science I only saw before in the propaganda piece form Jackson earlier.

    I have written to the BBC (Who stopped replying to me around 6 months ago) to ask the following questions:

    “Did Shine and Jackson write their own scripts or were they written for them?

    How much of their individual presentations did they actually own”

    How much influence does the BBC have over who gives the lectures and indeed how are the lecturers chosen?

    If anyone else who is not on the BBC naughty step fancies writing to ask the same questions I would be very interested to see the BBC’s answers!

    Either way Tara and Jacko are guilty as charged for crimes of gross moral turpitude.

    Doesn’t her CV read oddly to you? It does to me! It reads like the person writing it is in awe of her and sees her as some kind of minor deity! Tara did this and Tara did that, well whoopeee!

    The lack of detail of course is striking. Tara does not have jobs…. oh no she has “clients”. I am intrigued by the entry pointing out that she “negotiated on behalf of the EU at the United Nations”? What were those negotiations? When meeting breaks would be? What the sandwiches would be made of?

    MISSON and VISION. This is how a politician talks not how a pretend scientist talks. Also such terminology is very much out of date.

    She has NO listed experience which surely you need in order to be considered sage like ! She has gone directly from a geography PhD into minor deity role! How very peculiar.

    It is all very pompous I supposed to puff her up as “one of the elite”. She has a degree in environmental science. We used to call it an arts Geography because political and social geography are part of it. As for her PhD it is just geography with a fancy title. I dumped Geography at the end of my first year at university studying Geology and Geography. In geology it was all fact fact fact where as the same subject from the geographers perspective was “well it might be this and it might be that” wishy washy and imprecise I did well enough in my Geology exams to be invited onto the single honours course so I dumped tedious and wishywashy geography and did not look back.

    Regarding the Royal Institution. I did laugh when I saw the gimmicky statement below the name at the top of their first page. The Royal Institution “Science lives here”. I have never been one for gimmicky buzz at the best of times. It is a statement of the bloomin obvious but clearly the dummies in the hierarchy who thought it was a good idea clearly need to have things written down which the rest of us take for granted.
    Can it possibly be that they have infested their board with the supposed great and the good gaining ticks towards their hoped for OBE or MBE who have no clue what the Royal Institute is about, just being professional meetings attenders? I see their images are all awfully politically “correct” and woke with one making me wonder if that really has been made in the UK!
    Regarding dumbed down slogans, for example I am always drawn to read more when any company or body needs to promote it’s self using the word “quality” because the only people who need to do that are those who have a problem in that department!

  27. January 5, 2021 9:04 pm

    It seems the quality of journalism and any attempt to uncover facts has left us

    Complete piffle…

  28. January 5, 2021 11:54 pm

    When people start throwing around the word “scientist” we know we are in PR land
    as they try to leverage the word in a fallacy of Argument from Authority
    “Scientists say” etc. ….
    What scientists say is scientists’ OPINIONS
    & like anyone else’s OPINIONS they depend on the evidence the present

    We know many scientists are quite bad with evidence
    and many laymen are quite good with it.

    People with experience in a topic can be experts in in whether they are actively doing published research on it or not.
    I’d say she is an expert in many topics but not a good expert cos she is bad with evidence.

  29. January 6, 2021 12:20 am

    New Darren Grimes vid on the Green Jobs disaster

    • yonason permalink
      January 6, 2021 12:39 am

      Simple, to the point. excellent.


  30. cookers52 permalink
    January 6, 2021 1:58 am

    There has always been a market for bullshit

    • RobbertBobbert permalink
      January 6, 2021 4:24 am

      Australia no exception for BS…We actually wallow in this crap and have this garbage course en masse at our uni’s
      Here is a blurb about it from Curtin Uni Perth…

      …With human exploitation of the environment having taken a serious toll on the planet, environmental scientists are needed to solve issues related to land degradation, urban and regional development, pollution, loss of biodiversity, and the impacts of mining, oil and gas extraction and processing….

      That pretty much states that if you are concerned about the modern world we shall educate you to hate all about the modern world as well as giving you a Doctor title and use it to rally against The Plebians…while you get a wage well above the National average…or more with promotion…more…
      … After your first year of study you’ll specialise in one of the following streams….Wildlife Biology…Env Chemistry…Genetics
      Restoration is an interesting one as it is the only stream in which the Uni includes a money figure…

      …Restoration is an AUD$2 trillion global enterprise encompassing aquatic-to-terrestrial, desert and marine ecosystems…
      Learn to despise the modern world …the people in it…and revel in your cut of the 2 Trillion that the suckers have to pay

      I am not sure what these Restorations actually are…I am assuming measures private enterprise and government are obliged to take to restore the so called damage modern living does but this 2 Trillion…that is more than the Aussie GDP…is a mystery…Basically I am going with …Environmental Pigs In Swill…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: