Skip to content

Factcheck On The Times Climate “Facts”

March 20, 2021

By Paul Homewood



h/t Paul Weldon


Didn’t The Times used to be a serious newspaper?





I could not be asked to unlock the paywall, but no doubt the rest of it was a pile of drivel as well!


Let’s start with the claim that temperatures would be minus 18c without CO2. This is what NASA state:





Note the subtle difference  – “greenhouse gases” not “CO2”.

Water vapour has always been the major GHG, and CO2 is no more than a bit part player, because most of its absorption frequencies are already fully taken up by water vapour.

Mr Whipple then goes on to propagate the falsehood about how changing levels of CO2 led to forests at the South Pole and ice ages. If he had bothered to ask any geologist, he would have discovered that CO2 levels in the atmosphere FOLLOW climatic changes, not precede them. During an ice age, for instance, the oceans outgas less CO2, and conversely outgas more during warm eopchs.

All of this is totally evident from ice cores, which show CO2 responding to temperature, not the reverse.

But apparently, instead of presenting facts, Mr Whipple thinks it more relevant to show us photos of Prince Charles, David Attenborough and Greta, who all in their own way think human beings are a plague on the planet.

  1. Harry Davidson permalink
    March 20, 2021 6:19 pm

    Never believe anything from a newspaper unless they allow BTL comments, and do not delete the ones that disagree with the article. I was a Times subscriber for a year and found it very inaccurate, and comments that corrected their ‘facts’, with supporting links, were generally deleted.

    • tomo permalink
      March 21, 2021 12:24 am


      I took out a sub to look at a couple of specific bits of investigative journalism.

      The rest of the content was low grade tosh, swimming in advertorials and due diligence was near non existent. There are clearly some activists at play as well, spouting Guardianesque nonsense especially on air pollution and climate stories. The production department’s choice of photos and the subbing just added to the metro liberal activist circle jerking to the point where I’d had enough and cancelled.

  2. Phil O'Sophical permalink
    March 20, 2021 6:29 pm

    Never mind the temperature without CO2; without CO2 there would be no life on Earth to measure it.

    But if what many high reputable scientists and medics fear will be the result of the gene therapy experiment, CO2 will be the last of humanity’s worries; possibly literally.

  3. Thomas Carr permalink
    March 20, 2021 6:36 pm

    Tom Whipple is listed as a science editor for The Times .

    He wrote on P 16 of Thursday’s Times as part of the run up to COP26.
    ” Climate change is tricky to predict….. so how much do we really know?”

    As I have already suggested there is emerging a concerted attempt by The Times to give the conference some respectability ….and attract advertising perhaps.
    China and India will be worried.

    Ben Webster normally writes this stuff.

    • Mack permalink
      March 20, 2021 10:43 pm

      ‘China and India will be worried’. I presume you were being sarcastic Thomas? They couldn’t give a toss about our headlong rush into economic suicide. Ditto the Russians. They’re all laughing at us.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        March 21, 2021 9:31 am

        Then they are stupid. Poor neighbours don’t make you rich. Poor trading partners don’t make you rich.

    • Patrick Harcourt permalink
      March 21, 2021 11:48 am

      A great deal of the move of the UK print media towards supporting the CO2 hypothesis is about getting as much advertising for COP26 as possible. If a newspaper writes stories about the real costs and unreliability of renewables like wind and solar then the Renewables industry will not advertise. The newspapers need the dosh,

      I worked in the media industry for many years and much of the editorial coverage was most definitely linked to advertisers. One does not bite the hand that feeds. It is hypocrisy writ large and the one paper where this really sticks out is The Times who recently wrote an editorial supporting the government’s call-in of the Cumbrian coal mine.

  4. Chris permalink
    March 20, 2021 7:08 pm

    Mr Whipple won’t reply to questions

    Sent by CJ Matchette-Downes


  5. March 20, 2021 8:54 pm

    I see a picture of three people who are a plague on the planet..

  6. Graeme No.3 permalink
    March 20, 2021 9:15 pm

    Perhaps the writer should be asked how if the CO2 level was stable for (roughly) ten thousand years why the temperature varied at all?

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 20, 2021 10:10 pm

      Graph it in Kelvin, Graeme.

  7. Douglas Dragonfly permalink
    March 20, 2021 10:58 pm

    Is this not all about wealth and power – the type where you get to control people ?
    My example maybe off topic but it demonstrates the ludicrous lengths people will go to in order to create so called carbon off-set projects.
    Natural cloudbursts, floods and landslides damaging hydroelectric dams in the Himalayan river valleys recently, have killed hundreds.
    If these famous names given above care about people at all then they must hold national and international agancies and policy makers accountable for their failings, e.g. World Bank and Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  8. March 21, 2021 12:06 am

    Brilliant. Activism disguised as science is exposed as activism. Thank you.

    • tom0mason permalink
      March 21, 2021 6:51 am

      However the BIG question is —

  9. Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
    March 21, 2021 4:26 am

    ” 1. It’s not that complicated ”

    Seems to be way beyond this man’s intellect.
    Do they pay him?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 21, 2021 9:33 am

      And of course it is actually extremely complicated. Climate is a complex, non-linear possibly chaotic system. But apparently that just moves in lockstep with CO2 levels.

  10. Duker permalink
    March 21, 2021 4:32 am

    So what would the Earths predicted surface temperature without any CO2 ?
    I looked at some NASA sites and they all say their numbers are without CO2 only , not all greenhouse gases
    Nitrogen and Oxygen are the largest gases but play next to no role in warming due to their tight bonds. H2O and CO2 are the major players because of the weaker bonds allow absorption of energy from sunlight
    It must be simple enough to compare the H2O absorption to CO2 and then adjust for the relative quantities and we have the 2 bounds of current average temperature and temperature without GG

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      March 21, 2021 8:49 am

      No CO2? No life here, no measurements…..

    • paul weldon permalink
      March 21, 2021 10:42 am

      That is what I originally understood – Oxygen and nitrogen play little part in the warming of the atmosphere. But on deeper examination they actually have a huge indirect effect. In any explanation of the greenhouse effect, we are told that GHGs absorb I/R radiation, but not what happens when they re-emit, which happens within fractions of a second. The extra energy gained is immediately passed on to neighbouring molecules in the form of collisions, and the energy given off as heat. The denser the atmosphere, the more collisions. That explains why the temperature on Mars is -50C, even though the atmosphere is 95% Co2 (the atmosphere is only a tenth of that on Earth). It also explains why Venus is so hot (100 times denser atmosphere).

    • Anaxagoras permalink
      March 21, 2021 6:35 pm

      NASA has indicated previously what Earth would be like without water vapour: “Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere”… And: “Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases (water vapor), Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).” Which pretty well gives a big thumbs down for the “warming” effect of CO2.

      Interestingly: NASA has just landed their new rover, Perseverance on Mars. Perhaps Mars could be a suitable candidate for a test tube Earth without the benefit of water vapour.

      Mars is about half the size of Earth, with almost the same length of day, and even the same axial tilt. Although it is around 38 million miles further away from the Sun than Earth, it still receives an average of 586.2 W/m2, which is about four times more than we receive in the UK (128.4 W/m2).

      A very quick calculation on the back of a cigarette pack shows that Mars, with an atmosphere dominated by CO2 at 96%, has around 7 times more CO2 swirling around its thin atmosphere than we have on Earth (23,750Pg of CO2 on Mars Vs 3,300Pg of CO2 on Earth) but has an average temperature of -80°C.

      As mentioned above: NASA calculations predict that without water vapour helping to keep us warm, the average temperature on our dear planet would be close to -18°C. Thus proving beyond doubt that without water vapour, CO2 alone makes a pretty useless …. er….. greenhouse.

  11. tom0mason permalink
    March 21, 2021 7:38 am

    The BIG problem is that the whole AGW paradigm is based on the average of the the sun’s solar flux. This is the WRONG metric to base climatology on as it dilutes the sun’s effect across the whole of the Earth’s globe area. And from here all the nonsense starts, all the irrelevant maths assumptions and suppositions.

    In reality the sun warms the equatorial region of the globe that faces the sun at any time. It sets up the differential temperature gradient from equatorial to poles and from equatorial to night side of the globe.
    This sets up the atmospheric cells

    Note the change in height between the top of the cells as they go from equatorial to polar! Remember the Earth of ours is still spinning, the solar hot spot covers a different area as time moves on. And also note that during a cold period the tropical (Hadley) cell changes very little (proportionately) but the cells from temperate to polar regions cells lower more as a percentage of their height.
    With the huge oceans holding onto vast amounts of warmth, the surface geography changing (ocean to land – flat and mountainous – and back to ocean) as the Earth spins, add in cloud effects, Lunar effects, volcanic effects and solar variation (just to name very few) the weather patterns become quite chaotic.

    So what is CO2 doing all this time — who cares as it is not much because as the best evidence shows that global temperature variations leads CO2 variations (as Graeme No.3 shows above). Also see

    You may find this of interest …

  12. March 21, 2021 7:44 am

    Lol. Thanks.

  13. March 21, 2021 9:29 am

    During an ice age, for instance, the oceans outgas less CO2

    Not least because more of their surface area is covered in ice, of course. Cooler also means less evaporation and less water vapour.

    These are effects not causes.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 21, 2021 9:34 am

      Yes I’m curious how we get into an Ice Age so that there’s then lower CO2 .

  14. Ray Sanders permalink
    March 21, 2021 10:55 am

    “Yes I’m curious how we get into an Ice Age so that there’s then lower CO2 ”
    The principal cause is usually considered to be Milankovitch Cycles most notably variations in the Earth’s orbital inclination. The Wikipedia article is actually very good at describing these.,geophysicist%20and%20astronomer%20Milutin%20Milankovi%C4%87.

  15. Bloke down the pub permalink
    March 21, 2021 11:36 am

    I would guess that the cause of Antarctica’s temperature drop that resulted in the trees disappearing was linked to the land bridge to South America being broken and the start of the circum Antarctic current.

  16. Alan Haile permalink
    March 21, 2021 12:02 pm

    For the past few days The Times has been full of alarmist drivel about the ‘climate crisis’. Many of the comments I made below the line were deleted.

    • Patrick Harcourt permalink
      March 21, 2021 4:30 pm

      Alan, your comment is a very good reason why I will not sign up to an online subscription for The Times..

      The FT is also very supportive of the CO2 hypothesis and I comment regularly on its below the line comments section often being critical of the articles and the lack of knowledge and understanding of the journalists writing them. However, they have so far not deleted my comments and there is a usually a wide spread of sceptical views expressed.

  17. Gerry, England permalink
    March 21, 2021 12:11 pm

    Note that NASA admits that the role of the dominant water vapour is complicated which makes it hard to model and so in the models they chose to ignore any cooling role and just having it give more warming – which is what they want to see anyway.

    On the subject of the print media, I only continue to have the Daily Mail as it does have good financial coverage but I rarely read much beyond the headlines so you get an idea of the current topics but would never really expect to be well informed by most of its articles. Yes, you could look at the online version for free if you don’t mind loads of really annoying adverts but I find it easier to flick through while watching tv. To a degree many other people just read the headlines in the print media there days which they realise and so are keen to push you online to hit you with adverts.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: