Skip to content


March 9, 2021

By Paul Homewood



Novelist Jonathan Thacker has turned his hand to writing a new book called Denierland.

It’s worth checking out.



Denierland is the place where sceptics of climate catastrophe have been exiled.Sceptics refuse to bow to the consensus that the Wealthy West faces "Migration crises, civil wars, crop failures, famines, extreme weather, looting, wildfires and flooding" if we don’t cut our emissions of carbon dioxide to the fabled "Net Zero." Why? Are we too proud? Funded by fossil fuel interests? Is it pure selfishness? Maybe we’re too stupid? Is it because we think climate action is a ruse to install undemocratic global government? Do we think it is all a Chinese hoax to bankrupt the West? Nope, nope and nope again. The reason is far more prosaic. Sceptics have very good evidence that the alarmists’ fire and brimstone predictions are wildly exaggerated, and that the measures they propose won’t make life better for normal people anywhere. Instead, they will reduce our freedoms and make us poorer.And rationalising all the world’s problems onto a single axis – carbon dioxide – won’t solve the biodiversity crisis either. It will just make things worse for wildlife. Denierland explains why:CLIMATE CHANGE IS REALHUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE IS REALBUT HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE APOCALYPSE IS NOT.

  1. March 9, 2021 11:19 am

    I am proud to be a denier.

  2. March 9, 2021 11:27 am

    It benefits no one to make such an unsubstantiated claim.

    1. There is NO empirical data bsaed study which supports the contention that ALL of the current warming since the 18th century is manmade.

    2. There exists NO statistically significant empirical data which clearly demonstrates and isolates a specific portion of the current warming as attributable to man as separate from NATURAL warming in respect of when it started and how it has increased year on year.

    3. To then make claims that an existing and continuous process (climate change) has somehow been hijacked by the actions of man without empirical data based evidence is asinine and not worthy of repetition except by those weak of mind or those who are politically motivated seeing it as an easy route to obtaining power.

    • March 9, 2021 1:39 pm

      The 97% consensus does not agree that all the warming was due to humans, right? Nor has there ever been a consensus that states: “Apocalypse is inevitable unless we cut our CO2 emissions to zero.”

      Usually the consensus was fairly anodyne, that half the warming was human caused. In no way does that logically lead to the crazy climate measures we are seeing enforced now. (The book cover is a whimsical reference to the way we have been defeated. In fact the original consensus study found a 100% consensus, so I have it backwards.)

  3. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 9, 2021 11:43 am

    It’s almost certainly partly due to the lockdown and people stuffing their faces whilst bored, but this is one in the eye for the joyless climate/animal rights diet dictators.

    (Found via Guido –

  4. March 9, 2021 11:46 am

    Thanks for the big up Paul.

    Alas the formatting of the blurb got a bit messed up in translation.

    By the way, I’m usually an ecologist. I just write books that no-one reads on the side!

  5. March 9, 2021 11:51 am

    But how can you deny the science? The science is the science and it cannot be denied.

    • March 9, 2021 1:31 pm

      I prefer to be called a sceptic! The use of “denier” was kinda whimsical. Denierland is where we have been put, not where we choose to be.

      • March 9, 2021 1:45 pm

        It was an attempt at sarcasm but I didn’t do it well. Sorry, Jit.

      • Micky R permalink
        March 9, 2021 3:02 pm

        I prefer “non-believer”, as in “believers” and “non-believers”. Although a derivative of atheist would also be suitable i.e. absence of belief.

    • Curious George permalink
      March 9, 2021 7:13 pm

      I don’t deny the science. I deny the climate 🙂

  6. Up2snuff permalink
    March 9, 2021 12:40 pm

    “HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL” I’m not sure history would agree with the author there. For example, the tropical gardens at Inverewe were planted in the 1860s, about 130 years before Tony Blair invented Climate Change and over 150 years before Greta declared a Climate Emergency. The human influence on Inverewe appears to have zero impact and is limited to the digging out of weeds and welcoming more visitors.

    Just one example but I am sure there are more, especially at the poles and in places like San Francisco and Los Angeles.

    • March 9, 2021 1:34 pm


      You could probably call me a luke warmer: I accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I do not accept that any apocalyptic results can arise from increasing it to let’s say 2X pre-industrial. My SWAG is that cilmate sensitivity is quite a bit below 2 K per doubling of CO2. But there’s always the possibility that I am suffering from confirmation bias or some other psychological troubles.

      • Up2snuff permalink
        March 11, 2021 4:20 pm

        🙂 There is tremendous psychological and emotional pressure to ‘believe’ all the alarmists and ‘new religionists’ say.

        I would recognise some warming as being defined by the thermometer, causes of which are many and varied and also very variable over time.

        Preferably a mercury thermo is used for measurement and one stuck in what it needs to monitor and to be visited at regular intervals by a statistician with good eyesight. I recognise that that is impractical everywhere where modern humans can go and before the advent of small cameras and that instead ‘estimates’ have to be acquired by other devices such as thermal imaging.

        However, I was taught in science to be careful about things like that, to know the ± error of your equipment, to be consistent with your equipment placement, measuring points and its parameters and very definitely, when computers are involved, to be aware of GIGO!

        I would also welcome some planetary warming as it would generally benefit humanity, especially the poor, as well as cutting our heating bills in the developed world.

  7. Douglas Brodie permalink
    March 9, 2021 1:01 pm

    One simple argument against global warming is to concatenate Lord Monckton’s graph from March 2014 showing no global warming for the previous 17 years 8 months, see with the latest satellite global temperatures showing a downtrend since 2016 with the latest temperatures nudging 2014 levels, see

    Hence negligible global warming over the last 25 years with current temperatures trending lower. Not exactly a climate emergency, unless the worry is of pending global cooling.

  8. bobn permalink
    March 9, 2021 1:07 pm

    Dont think I agree with this book. Climate change is natural and ultimately governed by astrophysics. Mans influence on climate is limited to local effects like UHIs but is not global. Human caused climate change is so minute its unmeasured and unmeasurable on a global scale.
    The true climate deniers are those who deny that the Sun controls and varies our climate.

    • March 9, 2021 1:29 pm

      @ bobn

      Climate changes on all sorts of scales for all sorts of reasons. U Chicago has a handy tool called MODTRAN where you can examine the effect of changing the CO2 concentration on outgoing infra red radiation – doubling CO2 might lead to a 1% decrease in outgoing radiation. Left to itself without the much-vaunted feedbacks, this would be cancelled out if the Earth’s surface temperature rose by 0.75 K. This is not very terrifying.

  9. Broadlands permalink
    March 9, 2021 1:12 pm

    It is difficult to deny that the global mean temperature had risen from a “pre-industrial” 14.0°C to 14.83°C in 2016. (±0.5°C) while the global population rose to almost 8 billion. The correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population is almost perfect. If there is a climate emergency it is hard to detect without looking at model predictions.

  10. Malcolm Chapman permalink
    March 9, 2021 2:46 pm

    Jit – I haven’t read it yet, but it looks like you have written a book something like I might have attempted had I been considerably better informed and a lot less lazy. Thank you, and well done. Now, how do we get thousands of the thinking classes to read it? I think I can encourage three or four of them, at least. I will get back to you when I have read it myself.

    • March 9, 2021 2:53 pm


      Thank you for the kind words. I hope I have been scrupulously neutral in Denierland – but the conclusion is clear that there is no impending apocalypse. The measures our governments are forcing on us to “fight” climate change are actually going to cause many times more damage to our lives – and more importantly, to the lives of today’s young folk who are the ones agitating for it – than would happen if we did nothing.

    • chriskshaw permalink
      March 10, 2021 4:41 pm

      I mirror Malcolm’s praise. Thanks for writing this. My view is that you would have been preaching to the choir if you had chosen the “CO2 has no effect…” approach. No alarmist would read beyond the title. By accepting a painless portion of their theory you have a chance to at least have them consider the consequences of their vote.
      I didn’t get round to Bjorn Lombergs book which potentially covers similar ground. Hopefully I’ll be less lazy and get to read yours. Thanks for this, much appreciated.

      • March 10, 2021 5:12 pm


        Thanks for the kind words. I’m certainly more afraid of the measures our governments are going to put in place to “fight” climate change than I am of climate change itself, which I reckon is going to have quite neutral effects.

  11. avro607 permalink
    March 9, 2021 8:18 pm

    To Jit.
    You appear to believe that climate is sensitive to a so called forcing effect caused by the trace gas CO2,which effect is to raise the measured global air temperature by some amount,depending on the model used.
    There is absolutely no evidence for this.The Sun is the only energy source for our planet.

    • March 10, 2021 8:21 am

      [dang it, the last 2 tries went into the vortex. Last try at a reply:]

      @ avro

      True true. The Sun is indeed the source of almost all energy on Earth, barring a tiny quantity from radioactivity.

      You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to calculate the surface temperature of the Earth in the absence of any greenhouse gases, based entirely on radiative fluxes balancing out to zero. In Denierland I had a go at this and got a surface temperature of 257 K. Wiki’s number is 252 K. Mine does rely on a ballpark figure for albedo of 0.3.

      The reason for the discrepancy is that in the no-atmosphere situation, all infra red energy radiated from the surface escapes into space. With an atmosphere including greenhouse gases, some is absorbed (yes, and then we arrive at the fabled “back radiation” so disapproved of in some quarters).

      I can give more details of the calculation if you like.

  12. NeilC permalink
    March 10, 2021 5:45 am

    The sun is the 99.99% energy source for the Earth. Water vapour in the atmosphere controls how much of the sun’s radiation reaches the surface, which controls the temperature. Highly mobile air-masses and their state of stability produce weather and eventually climate, it is nature at work.

    I don’t deny climate change, it is natural, I do deny bad science and the politics of climate change

    • Up2snuff permalink
      March 11, 2021 4:26 pm

      Echo that. Sooner or later, the alarmists will have to realise that they were wrong and that our planet is very much a ‘Goldilocks’ one: neither too cold nor too hot and that God made it that way for humankind to survive and thrive.

      When that point will be reached, when alarmists realise their errors, I know not.

  13. Mark Hodgson permalink
    March 12, 2021 7:26 pm

    I finished reading Denierland today, and commend it to you all. A well-balanced book that concludes we are right to be sceptical, but only having first set out all the arguments and explaining in measured and clear terms why the author arrives at the conclusions he does. It treats difficult topics well and is clearly written and readily comprehensible to the non-expert.

    Whilst I enjoyed it all, I found it rising to a crescendo, and particularly relished chapter 9 (“Alarm: how does the crisis narrative thrive?”) and chapter 10 (“Solutions: is the cure worse than the disease?”).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: