Skip to content

Climate Scientists Want To Ban Dissenting Views

September 28, 2022

By Paul Homewood



A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.

Appearing earlier this year in The European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events.

It has been viewed thousands of times on social media and cited by some mainstream media, such as Sky News Australia.

"On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, in not evident," reads the summary of the 20-page study.

Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study—of which they had been unaware—grossly manipulates data, cherry picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions.

"The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment," said Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.

The authors ignore the authoritative Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) report published a couple of months before their study was submitted to Springer Nature, Betts noted.

"Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe," the IPCC concluded in that report.

"Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened" since the previous report eight years earlier, it said.

"They are writing this article in bad faith," said Friederike Otto, a senior climatologist at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

"They do not have a section on heat waves"—mentioned only in passing—"where the observed trends are so incredibly obvious", Otto said.

Richard Betts, more than most people, should surely realise that this is not how you do science. If you disagree with a particular scientific study, you challenge it on a factual basis and point out exactly where it is flawed.

There is a well established method of doing this, which is to ask the Journal to print response to the original article. Normally the paper’s authors would of course have a right of reply. That is the way the real facts are established.

To simply demand that the Journal withdraws the paper is the worst sort of censorship, and reminds us all of the dark days of Climategate, when such practices were rife whenever anybody dared to challenge the climate establishment’s agenda.

The study they complain about, Alimonti et al, was covered by me here, and was actually a pretty level-headed, uncontroversial assessment of the actual data:

Betts refers to the IPCC, but despite the hyperbolic headlines of the Summary for Policymakers, there is actually nothing in last years AR6 which contradicts anything in this latest study.

It is ludicrous of Friederike Otto to highlight heatwaves, but not to acknowledge the corresponding reduction in extreme cold weather. Why do more heatwaves make a climate emergency, when more cold waves don’t?

Let’s look at some of the other “emergencies”, which Betts seems to be imagining:

1) Heavy Precipitation

It is generally accepted, and emphasised by the IPCC, that globally precipitation has increased since 1950, and this is recognised by the new paper:


But far from this being a bad thing, in many areas of the world it has actually served to relieve drought, for instance in the US, India, China and Central Asia.

In terms of floods however, the IPCC can find no evidence that they are getting worse, merely the usual regional changes we expect to see over time:


2) Droughts

As you might expect from increasing global precipitation, Alimonti et al find no evidence of increasing drought, indeed the opposite is true:


3) Tropical Cyclones

According to the IPCC themselves, there are no long term trends in TC activity, something which most hurricane experts agree with.

Betts is not in line with the science, if he maintains otherwise.



4) Weather Attribution Models

With all of the data contradicting claims of a climate emergency, what do Betts and co resort to? None other than those thoroughly discredited weather attribution models, which Otto herself is in charge of! (Otto, by the way, works for the The Grantham Institute for Climate Change, well known for stoking climate alarm, and has even written a book, “Angry Weather”, which purports to “link” bad weather with global warming!)

Who to believe? Computer models or the lying data?

What Climate Emergency?

Alimonti et al don’t deny that the world is a little bit warmer than a century ago, nor that the climate has been changing.

But after analysing the official data, they failed to find any evidence of a climate crisis. This is from the paper’s summary:

“On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident”


Betts and co may disagree, that is their prerogative. But if they do, they need to present the facts why, instead of blackmailing the The European Physical Journal Plus into withdrawing the paper.

  1. September 28, 2022 12:50 pm

    Well, it’s obvious that “Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.” and “The Grantham Institute for Climate Change” are objective observers. NOT

    • September 28, 2022 1:55 pm

      I have never trusted anything Betts says since he used to participate at Bishop Hill. He has no integrity.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        September 28, 2022 2:19 pm

        I remember. He sticks to the facts that allow him to keep his job.

      • September 28, 2022 2:59 pm

        There are no dissenting voices at the Met Office, because all their careers, salaries, perks, pensions etc would go down the pan.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        September 28, 2022 3:11 pm

        As H.L. Mencken once pointed out, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it.

      • Mike Freeman permalink
        September 28, 2022 9:24 pm

        yep….I remember this too, he came over all ‘lets work together’ but what he really was trying to do was force his views & actually shut down debate. Total paid up member of the blob.

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        September 29, 2022 4:44 am

        That was Upton Sinclair Weasel

  2. September 28, 2022 1:15 pm

    “They do not have a section on heat waves”—mentioned only in passing—”where the observed trends are so incredibly obvious”, Otto said.

    … only via use of a crude fixed threshold set just above the maximum temperature of previous heatwaves, now more frequently exceeded due to the overall rise of maximum temperatures. I wonder what would happen if the threshold were set relative to the recent average temperature.

    There is also the issue of recent pauses in climate changes, for example is it an emergency that Arctic sea ice is no longer declining, as is rainfall at Perth (WA) and Cape Town?

  3. Stephen H permalink
    September 28, 2022 1:19 pm

    You’d be getting off lightly, simply being banned. I’ve seen comments in the Guardian calling for “deniers” to be imprisoned without trial.

  4. Broadlands permalink
    September 28, 2022 1:31 pm

    Perhaps those “experts” missed reading the very last sentence in the abstract? That is exactly what should be done, existential climate crisis or not. Especially important while we are in an energy crisis where infrastructure adaptations to extreme weather will be critical if transportation fuels are in short supply.

  5. Chaswarnertoo permalink
    September 28, 2022 1:36 pm

    Richard Betts, a real Dick?

    • catweazle666 permalink
      September 28, 2022 3:12 pm


  6. John189 permalink
    September 28, 2022 1:56 pm

    “The climate crisis we are all experiencing now” – a ridiculous meme invented to scare people and governments into doing something. Well, I am happy to report that I am not experiencing a climate crisis “now”. Yes I have experienced bad weather on many occasions but “climate crisis”? I cannot even fathom the meaning of such an inane phrase.

  7. Andrew Harding permalink
    September 28, 2022 1:58 pm

    This all goes back to whoever it was that started the mantra; ‘The science is settled’. The fact that science is never settled does not seem to have entered their tiny, misguided and closed minds!

  8. 2hmp permalink
    September 28, 2022 2:01 pm

    The continued presentation of serious analysis showing no climate crisis is not getting through to politicians. Why not ? Are they thick, or stupid, or funded by renewables industries?

    • devonblueboy permalink
      September 28, 2022 2:13 pm

      All of the above?

    • Stonyground permalink
      September 28, 2022 2:18 pm

      All three?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      September 28, 2022 2:38 pm

      People don’t change their beliefs. Once this sort of stuff – or any science for that matter – becomes a belief, it is extremely difficult to get people to change their mind. And once it is a belief, people will often vehemently object to attempts to change their mind.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        September 28, 2022 3:48 pm

        The wackier the belief, the more vehemently the disciples will decry the non-believers. They’re all drinking from the Kool-Aid bottle.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        September 28, 2022 3:58 pm

        It has ceased to be a belief, it has become a religion.

        “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

        ― G.K. Chesterton

      • Mike Freeman permalink
        September 28, 2022 9:29 pm

        ….’it is far easier to con someone than convince them they have been conned’….still as true today as when (..Twaine?) said it.

  9. Martin Brumby permalink
    September 28, 2022 2:29 pm

    Betts and MET Office?
    Otto and Grantham?

    Those pants-on-fire buffoons?

    I’d trust Baron von Münchhausen very much sooner.

    The ONLY Climate Crisis is from the lies spouted by these charlatans and their venal chums.

    • dennisambler permalink
      September 29, 2022 11:37 pm

      Otto is a Potsdam product, she was there from 2008-11, then went on to Free University Berlin, gaining a doctorate in philosophy of science in 2011. She joined the University of Oxford in the same year and was director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford before joining Grantham Imperial branch in October 2021.

      “Over the last handful of years, major advances have meant that what were concerns over the impact on climate change, are understood realities. And, she says, it is costing thousands, perhaps millions, of deaths globally every single year.

      Dr Otto and her team are working at the forefront of climate science and she is highly sought-after for comments on every weather event.”

      She is also leading the “World Weather Attribution Initiative”

  10. September 28, 2022 2:33 pm

    “They do not have a section on heat waves”

    Heat waves are mentioned in the second sentence of the abstract, i.e. at the start of the paper:
    ‘The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant’.

  11. Phoenix44 permalink
    September 28, 2022 2:35 pm

    As per this internal document from the government: – quite frightening

    Click to access Wall_of_Beliefs_-publication.pdf

    • catweazle666 permalink
      September 28, 2022 3:31 pm

      Brainwashing, pure and simple.

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      September 29, 2022 1:18 pm

      Strewth, I took one glance at that document and assumed it was some sort of scam or spoof Orwell extract…then I realised it wasn’t – truly scary.
      Thanks for the enlightenment.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        September 29, 2022 1:54 pm

        It’s nice to see that our taxes are going to worthwhile activities in the civil service.

  12. Phil Beckley permalink
    September 28, 2022 3:09 pm

    The critics calling for censorship seem to be ignorant of the philosophy of science: that evidence supporting a hypothesis is unimportant – it is evidence which may disprove it, or at least throw doubt on it, which is important. Or they are ignoring this vital principle.

    • dennisambler permalink
      September 29, 2022 11:40 pm

      Ignoring it.

  13. GeoffB permalink
    September 28, 2022 3:24 pm

    If the global warming scam is shown to be wrong, all these people lose their cushy jobs, that is the real reason for their concern.
    Why do they not enter into open debate with the climate change deniers? Because they would loose the argument when up against greater experts who are not financially dependent on promulgating all these lies and flawed computer models.

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      September 28, 2022 8:30 pm

      The recent climate debate between alarmist Andy Dessler v sceptic Steve Koonin showed why climate alarmists seldom debate.

      Going in Dessler was arrogance personified. Coming out Koonin had handed him his arse on a plate. Checkmate.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        September 28, 2022 10:49 pm

        Is there a link for this please. I do so enjoy a spot of verbal bloodsports!

  14. September 28, 2022 3:24 pm

    “They do not have a section on heat waves”—mentioned only in passing—”where the observed trends are so incredibly obvious”, Otto said.

    Otto is incredibly disingenuous. The authors don’t have a section dedicated specifically to heatwaves but they do say a fair amount about heatwaves and they state that globally, whilst the frequency and duration has been increasing, the intensity has not. The authors freely admit that the observed increase in frequency can be attributed to a warming world. They state that this is the only change in extreme weather which CAN robustly be linked to global warming. I wrote about it here. Otto is a bad faith actor and a climate alarmist cultist. Betts is not far behind.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      September 28, 2022 6:02 pm

      But where you’re on a loser, Jaime, is that if they accept that increased heatwave frequency can be attributed to a warming world AND that the warming is attributable to mankind’s activities (notably his irresponsible habit of breathing out among other things 🥴) it follows in their minds that casting doubt on this theory is something that should not be allowed.
      Which is, to say the least, consistent. Betts ought to know better; Otto has drunk the kool-aid and “taken Grantham’s shilling”. Catweazle’s reference to Mencken above hits the spot!

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        September 29, 2022 5:24 pm

        Catweazle misquoted the writer …..It was an Upton Sinclair quip – not Mencken

      • dennisambler permalink
        September 29, 2022 11:45 pm

        Otto was trained by Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf at Potsdam. Graduates like her have been released onto the world to perpetuate the Agenda. They are the Potsdam Cuckoos.

  15. europeanonion permalink
    September 28, 2022 3:24 pm

    Water is a key element and, especially in the USA, is being negligently overused leading to land shrinkage and the abuse of rivers, especially the Colorado, which today peters-out well before reaching its mouth. The problem with water, as the graph describes, is not quantity but its distribution. Perhaps it is time for national water grids rather than wasteful reservoirs in areas of lower precipitation. Maybe a pressurised water system could overcome the necessity for storing immense amounts of water in loft tanks.

  16. September 28, 2022 4:03 pm

    I had a brief twitter conversation with Betts some time ago. What a putz.

    • geronimo permalink
      September 30, 2022 8:35 am

      In what way Bob? I find him as someone who sees its warming (it is) and that there will be bad consequences arising from it (there needn’t but he thinks that). In my opinion that basic belief- that there have to be bad consequences from an atmosphere warming shapes all his views. Once you’ve tied you flag to the mask of “change = problems” then problems occur everywhere (indeed they’re easy to find in normal circumstances) and everyone of them confirms one’s views that climate change is causing problems. That’s Richard’s problem.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        September 30, 2022 10:07 am

        With a problem like that, his achievement of his current position says it all about the dangers of ‘group think’.

  17. Malcolm permalink
    September 28, 2022 5:46 pm

    All the nastiness from the left greens (the comment in the Guardian cannot be true?) explains exactly why socialism – actually an attractive concept – fails totally to work. Only the loud minority voices are right and there are no options permitted, period.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      September 28, 2022 6:26 pm

      The reason why Socialism and Socialists are invariably going to fail dismally is because they explicitly d0 not believe in human nature.
      Simple as that.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      September 29, 2022 8:23 am

      Why is socialism attractive? If people are free they are not equal, if they are equal they ain’t free.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        September 29, 2022 8:33 am

        It is generally attractive to those people who are employed in the non productive sector of the economy, those who have no idea of how the economy functions and those lazy bar stewards who believe the country owes them a living.

  18. Richard Betts permalink
    September 28, 2022 8:14 pm

    Actually I specifically did *not* call for the paper to be withdrawn. The journalist acknowledged this, but not until the end of the article (which I complained about) and only the first half of the article is reproduced in the blog here.

    • Mike Freeman permalink
      September 28, 2022 9:33 pm

      ….so Richard….are they right or wrong?
      Are we in a ‘climate crissis’….?

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      September 29, 2022 1:29 pm

      Well actually, as far as I can ascertain, nowhere above does it actually state the person known as Richard Betts (who may or may not be you) did specifically call the paper to be withdrawn. It states
      “A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.”
      My inference from your comment (if you really are Richard Betz) is that you probably did but “not in so many words”. The press are such bitches ain’t they?

      • Ray Sanders permalink
        September 29, 2022 1:32 pm

        Oops got my own physics mixed up there – “Betz” as in “Betz’ Law” should have read “Betts” as in charlatan.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        September 29, 2022 1:56 pm

        What a wonderful use of the English language, it quite made my day 🤣🤣

  19. John Dodders permalink
    September 28, 2022 9:34 pm

    Betts response on twitter. Thread:

    • Mike Freeman permalink
      September 28, 2022 11:09 pm

      ….so he says why ARE in a climate crisis via sections in the IPCC AR6. But leaves wiggle room in case it turns out to be rubbish in a few years. I reckon they all go to the same language school as Nick & Gavin.

  20. Curious George permalink
    September 29, 2022 12:47 am

    Ban any dissenting opinion. Germany, 1936. A lot of good it did.

  21. dai davies permalink
    September 29, 2022 1:31 am

    As long as the debate is about climate change and not its causes the discussion will go on round and round in circles forever.
    There is no basis in physics for the assumption of a 33C greenhouse effect. Not one academic paper that even tries to support it.
    The moon has a comparably elevated temperature but no atmosphere. This is readily explained and quantified. earth is trickier.
    Theoretical calculations show the GHE to be less than 1% of the assumed value

    see dai_davies on Gab for details.

  22. Layor permalink
    September 29, 2022 4:01 am

    Comment backed by the IPCC? Read this book – ‘The Delinquent Teenager
    who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert’. If you can’t be bothered reading it at least look at the Amazon reviews for this best seller. It will dispel any thoughts you may have held for thelies, ramblings and innuendo of the IPCC.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      September 29, 2022 10:46 am

      Yes, great book and not very long. One reputable scientist accurately described the IPCC as an advocacy group for global warming. Another excellent book ‘The Deniers’ in the last chapter took a look at the IPCC and pointed out that none of the main protagonists had ever achieved anything useful in science as opposed to many of those the author had profiled as being ‘deniers’.

  23. Cheshire Red permalink
    September 29, 2022 1:23 pm

    The only dissent comes from general public rebels.

    It’s not coming from within politics where voices may have internal influence within Westminster. No challenge to these deeply flawed policies simply locks in the green consensus of the Westminster bubble.

    • Micky R permalink
      September 30, 2022 7:55 am

      At this point, for most people dissent should be driven by the cost of decarbonisation. At some future point, for most people dissent will probably be driven by cost and power outages.

      As previously posted, my view on the cost of decarbonisation to date:

      c£150 billion handout from the taxpayer to the “energy suppliers”
      c£150 billion “excessive profits” for the “energy suppliers” i.e. paid for by the UK consumer
      c£100 billion in subsidies to renewable energy companies?
      c£20 billion carbon tax?
      c£500 billion to date?

  24. Dan Pangburn permalink
    September 30, 2022 5:43 pm

    Water vapor has been increasing 1.44% per decade since before 1988.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: