Why There Is No Climate Crisis
February 1, 2023
By Paul Homewood
I mentioned the new Climate Debate website the other day. It was set up by Ben Pile amongst others, and is a treasure trove of relevant material and hard headed analysis.
You can check it out here.
Ben has put together this hard hitting video, which I would ask you all to share as widely as possible
51 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
‘Climate and energy policy has been driven by a political, not scientific consensus. It was formed without any conversation with the public about the scientific facts, evidence, or about the consequences of such a radical change of society and the principles driving it.’
Yes, this should be on the reading list for all schools, colleges and politicians not to mention Guardian writers
Douglas, not a criticism but just to point out that consensus is not part of scientific endeavour. The term scientific consensus is an oxymoron. Science exists only based on what data says, not what people say. The fact that the weasels have been allowed to get away with attaching this political term to the word science speaks volumes about what we are dealing with.
Please pardon me pardonme, I certainly haven’t taken your observation as criticism. Indeed I visit here primarily to learn.
I’ve made some mistakes and am grateful for peoples’ tolerance. Paul’s site has helped me organise my thoughts at a time I thought no one else was thinking AGW was ludicrous.
The actual quote was taken from the website but it will teach me to hone my critical reading skills.
This link has footage and photos of ER at there most idiotic so be warned. (Silly ritual with fake blood and choir.)
Though I feel for the people who’s homes will be negatively affected by this airport expansion.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-airport-ruling-challenge-against-8093299
Hi Douglas. I know maybe 1% of 1% of what is going on after 35 years grappling with my end of the range of disciplines which come under the umbrella of climate science.
It is telling that the climate movement focuses on effect and uses the nonsense “consensus” term to avoid discussion of cause which is what the discussion should really be all about. Science is the process of achieving enlightenment which is the search for truth. It is not an end in it’s self To say something is based in science, a claim or assertion must be supported by statistically significant empirical data obtained by a falsifiable methodology. That does not mean when such data exists that the “science is settled”, another of the weasel terms thrown about. New data can completely change our understanding of what we thought we knew only last week. There are no sacred cows in science. However there are whole herds of them supporting the climate religion.
For something to be based in science, a claim must be supported by empirical data. There is no empirical data in existence which supports either the claim that CO2 is a control knob on planetary temperature or the even more absurd idea that the proportionally tiny amount of CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man alone is the control knob. No empirical data means no science, so what you are left with is assertion or belief and that is the realm of ideology and religion.
If there is no science supporting the claimed cause then there can be no science linking cause to claims of effect(s). QED. I avoid using the word “proof” which is a mathematical and legal term. Proof is absolute, science is not.
“The term scientific consensus is an oxymoron.”
As is “settled science” too, of course.
The author Michael Crichton (MD Harvard University) had this to say about ‘scientific consensus’, in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
I recall my Biochemistry Prof at Aberdeen University in 1968 saying something similar, but not so eloquently!
“Science exists only based on what data says, not what people say.”
I would only add the rider that data needs to be interpreted by the fallible minds of human beings. I wouldn’t be quite so absolute, and (sorry to say) interpretation does bring at least some measure of collective wisdom into play (trying to dodge the word “consensus”). Otherwise, I’m aligned with the sentiment.
Jordan, as someone who “interprets” data for a living I am constantly aware of my ability to introduce bias into the “interpretation”. Therefore in an imperfect world this is why statistical significance is my preferred choice. Yes ok damned lies and statistics but 2 Standard Deviations has rarely let me down.
Re your comment below. I’d love to get an assessment of my piece at TCW entitled ‘Cold Comfort’. I’ve no idea if my proposed warming mechanism is significant but it will certainly exist. Am I allowed to leave the detail?
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/cold-comfort/
JF
Julian, you just provided my reading for this evening! I look forward to it. Thank you JonnyS
@pardonmeforbreathing. A confidence interval gives you an estimate (and it’s only an estimate) of the likelihood that you have been misled by your data sample.
So “rarely let you down” means you accept you will be occasionally let down. Data has to be “interpreted” as I said.
If you think that adoption of 2 SDs makes your “interpretation” exceptional, I could suggest an area of bias you have not quite spotted yet.
Jordan,
You are overreaching now. I am fully aware of bias and the danger of ignorance or unfamiliarity with input where third party input is included. There is no perfect situation or solution. In an imperfect world only the pragmatic usage of statistics can provide a practical checking system. I used the words “rarely let me down” deliberately and carefully. Data it’s self is no guarantor of a successful outcome. 2 SDs does not protect from inappropriately collected data or inappropriate data. In relatively new areas of technological development or where sparse data collection is possible it is so easy to alias even good data. If Concorde had been produced and flown in the same quantity as for example 737’s then the sky would have rained Concordes for a while because of the way the design pushed the envelope of knowledge. I was fortunate not to be part of that statistical outcome.
pardonmeforbreathing. Good grief! You completely miss my point. It had nothing to do with “ignorance or unfamiliarity with input where third party input is included”.
If you have an ideal statistically independent random variate, perfectly collected, an SD (or CI) gives you an estimate the likelihood that your data and analysis has misled you.
That is because the statistical aggregate of a random variate is, itself, a random variate.
In real world situations, an ideal statistically independent random variate is a rare thing indeed. There will be at least some measure of correlation between data samples. This means the SD (or CI) determined by direct application of statistical methods (which are valid for statistically independent samples) will be broader than the ideal. Leaving us with greater uncertainty in our conclusions compared to the ideal SD (or CI).
Which all comes back to my initial point about “interpretation” and the reason why I believe it is sensible not to be too absolute with stuff and nonsense like: ““science exists only based on what data says, not what people say”.
That’s me done here because I am already regretting time wasted on this conversation.
Jordan I already did. Life is too short
An excellent video.
A very good video Paul, we are on the brink of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The huge changes in the human condition that have been brought about since the scientific and technical revolution that started in the 17th century have led to the world population reaching 8 billion. This has been a continual process which continues today. However, along the way we have failed to address the problem of human social behaviour, which is easily manipulated by individuals with an agenda based on an entrenched ‘belief’.
Belief has always been the enemy of any form of human progress, either religious or political and is, as human history demonstrates, irrational.
George Monbiot the ‘crybully’
I really was not going to comment on this thread as I found most of the morons on the video quite disgusting. However, I showed the video clip to my wife who very rarely swears. and her remark is most fitting “who the f##k was that W#anker” (Mr Monbiot!)
I do miss the late Christopher Booker …….
Even if there is a “climate crisis”, have you ever heard the weasels define what the definition of said crisis is and then describe the “crisis climate region by region)? We hear lots of grandiose claims but none of them are backed up by data of any kind. Individual weather events now are climate. Weather has become climate.
Climate is not constant across the planet or even across a continent. Where is the analysis of the effect climate region by region? If a global effect is being claimed then the claimed “crisis” should be global. Could that be why they do not do it?
The claimed crisis clearly has nothing to do with food production which one would think would be the first place to look for the impact of said crisis where reality demonstrates year on year record food production across the board around the world. The lefties are doing their best to counter this however. For example, with the weasel in chief in California deliberately vetoing water management projects and then claiming a water crisis and using that to cut water supplies to farmers thereby causing a drop in productivity AND THEN having the effrontery to blame the product of their actions on Klymutt Sheyngsh
Even if there were a crisis, there is NO empirical data based evidence to show this is man made.
Notice how all the mainstream media (a collective noun for propagandists made up of liars, wilful liars and liars by omission), have deliberately memory holed natural climate and its 4.5 billion years of continuous change in the minds of Joe and Josephine Public and replaced it with the hysterical and nonsensical point that climate change only began recently and is 100% caused by man.
On a broader note, consider the “solutions” the hopeless politicians, rent seekers (universities, activist groups and weasel elites ) offer themselves up as champions of promising to “fight climate change” (A nonsensical and asinine term if ever there was one). They use our money of course which involves the impoverishment of you and I and a direct erosion of not only our living standards but at the same time attack our freedom and the foundation of our civilization. They claim they can do this while at the same time being demonstrably incapable of balancing a budget, bringing dignity to old age, getting rid of cancer and eradicating third world poverty.
A better example of deflection it not possible to fine.
If warming is so bad then why were things “so good” during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods? Where were the climate crises then? Could it be because marxism and environmentalism had not yet been invented?
I will leave you with one final thought. Imagine if all the money wasted on this left wing politically driven asininity had instead been spent on cancer research………….
According to arch-AGW hoaxers like Mike Mann, Bob Ward and the vermin at the University of East Anglia and London School of Economics – to name but a few – the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods didn’t happen.
“Hide the Decline!
Changing human behaviour is difficult and slow. Brainwashing children will extend the process even further. Whist the UK Government swallows climate crisis warnings by hook line and sinker, it will need a clearing out of all the unthinking MPs before any real progress can begin in this small part of the planet..
I’m afraid he lost me at:
“In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense.”
Except on a very local scale, mankind does not control climate. Micro-climate, yes; planetary-scale climate, no.
Exactly. That line is offered as a sop to deflect any criticism by saying ‘we accept CC is real and a serious issue etc’.
Decades worth of historical events, physical observations and measured and recorded data obliterate any case for a ‘climate emergency’. The whole thing is world-class gaslighting.
Brilliant video.
Yes, it is an excellent video. It was published early this morning here: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk
There are some excellent comments. But few, if any, suggest a solution. Here’s what I said in response to one commentator who argued that the science does not support the AGW hypothesis:
You may be right DG but it’s not very helpful. I’ve absolutely no doubt that, as Ben says, climate policies are a far more real and more dangerous threat than climate change – that they are a growing risk to our economy, our food supply, our health and our safety. So the priority – the absolute, overriding priority – must be to stop these absurd and dangerous policies. And it simply isn’t possible to do that by trying to persuade the ‘radical greens’, from leading politicians to street protestors, that their understanding of the science is wrong: all that happens then is that you’re dismissed as a ‘denier’ unworthy of further attention.
Fortunately – and I cannot stress this enough – it’s really quite easy to show that, even if their claims were true, their policies are not a solution – indeed they would only make things even worse. Therefore that must be the way to go if we’re really serious about getting rid of these policies. Get that done and then start to work on getting rid of ‘the dark and dangerous ideology’ that, as Ben says, is infecting the world.
Jordan Peterson made an announcement recently on a Joe Rogan podcast of a coalition to be based in London, his first agenda item is to stop Net Zero from denying low cost energy to poor people. Sorry, saw it on a different youtube video, did not record the link. Googling his name + coalition gives endless news reports about the coalition trying to get him cancelled.
The war is probably lost, but some battles continue.
Peterson is right: a priority must be to stop Net Zero. And, as I said here a few minutes ago, it is possible. For more detail, see my article here: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-net-zero-is-nonsense-a-briefing-document-for-opponents/.
Don’t give up: the war is not lost.
Probably should have said that the occupation is almost complete, but the insurgency continues.
One friend has commented already that the video conveys the impression that there is masses of CO2 in the atmosphere. He said he thought it was not as good as the Climate debate podcast for explaining the driving force for control
Monbiot breaking down in tears made my day! The problem is the people like Kerry, Gore, Attenborough, Carney, Guterres…..who have political credibility, know how to speak well and have had/hold senior positions in big organisations. the masses tend to trust them. I just wonder if their motive for speaking out is genuine. The montage of the green loonies throwing soup and custard on works of art, breaking windows, petrol pumps, just shows how stupid they are, together with the maniacal expressions, finger jabbing, when they are challenged by knowledgeable interviewers.
A good video but it won’t alter the fact that the anthropic warming army has won the debate. The argument will be reinforced by the NASA website which shows that Arctic Ice area is at its second lowest level for the end of January, while the Antarctic Ice Area is at a new low. (https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover).
Perhaps the dramatic action of the jetstream is causing the melting of the ice by cold weather being dragged away from the poles and causing record cold regions as is argued by Cap Allon of electrovers.co. He believes the solar cycle is now cooling the planet. Paul has occasionally refered to articles from electroverse.
I have long felt that the best that might be achieved is to stop our Government making disasterous decisions that will destroy the UK economy. Unfortunately this has not been the case. Dieter Helm’s paper of July 2022, The Coal Question,
makes an excellent case that we are heading in the wrong direct: http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/climate-change/the-coal-question/
Whether you agree with his view on global warming or not, it is a very depressing paper.
‘the anthropic warming army has won the debate‘
No, it hasn’t. Not if we change the terms of the debate by showing – and it’s relatively easy to do this – that the policies they endorse are unachievable, disastrous and, above all, pointless. If attempted, they’ll wreck the UK economy and make the lives of millions of people utterly miserable. And they won’t cut global CO2 emissions. The Helm article that you cite makes these points eloquently.
“A good video but it won’t alter the fact that the anthropic warming army has won the debate.
The worm is turning.
Globally, ever-decreasing numbers believe climate change is a serious problem, now down to less than half:
Heh – “AS THREAT GROWS”!
Seems the increasingly frantic alarmist propaganda efforts of the AGW hoaxers are globally failing and they’re starting to panic, doesn’t it?
As the old saying goes, “you can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
The AGW hoax is dying on its feet.
Then there’s this:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/n-hemisphere-temps-set-to-fall-over-next-25-years-say-top-intl-scientists/
But the bedwetters don’t need to worry, the Globalists will dream up something else to make them hand over all their money, lose sleep over, lock themselves up, terrorise their kids and hide behind the sofa very soon now.
In fact I think they’ll find they already have – GLOBAL PANDEMICS caused by gain-of-function research.
“the anthropic warming army has won the debate”
Until we face a real problem, and then it’s swept aside. Has anybody heard objections to Ukraine defending itself against its abusive neighbour on the argument that armed conflict is bad for the environment? Nah.
Anthropogenic warming is a figment of the imagination of comfortable, bored, middle income people who are longing for something intangible to worry about.
‘the anthropic warming army has won the debate‘
No, it hasn’t. At least not if we change the terms of the debate by ignoring the ‘science’ and showing – and it’s relatively easy to do this (https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-net-zero-is-nonsense-a-briefing-document-for-opponents/) – that the policies they endorse are unachievable, disastrous and, above all, pointless.
Darkness does not extinguish hope: only the sure knowledge that light will never return can do that.
There seem to be an awful lot of Catastrophics pedalling their views, especially at the start before there is any rebuttal.
It’s difficult to counter emotion and (religious) belief with facts unfortunately
Ben: you have hit the nail on the head. This not a scientific or political debate it is a religion with all the features that are shared with religions – credo, priesthoods, mantras and so forth. Christianity is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the populace to enrich the elites and it is still here after two thousand years, There are still millions who believe that a man they called Jesus was born of a virgin and could walk on water. And who did the the religionists target? The children, of course. No, we are not going to win this one any time soon.
There can’t possibly be a ‘Climate crisis’.
A word/phrase search of IPCC AR6 WG1 shows that not one of the (thousands of) contributing scientists & compliers used that phrase in the document.
Science used to have an unwritten code, that it be devoid of emotion, and of unscientific words like “crisis”. Sadly the code is broken by activists and journal editors, but it probably still exists amongst most scientists in their publications.
Einstein summed up scientists in this 1918 speech:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/passage-from-1918-speech-young-german-scientist-named-singh
(the abridged version from ‘Zen and the art of motorcycle mainteinance”)
Safe to say that most climate scientists fall into the first two categories. The coming of the angel is eagerly awaited.
” … contributing scientists & compilers …”
Maybe the original was a Freudian slip.
“Climate Crisis” is sooo yesterday anyway.
According to the Davos private jet set we’re actually beset by a POLYCRISIS!
The video cannot be seen as a strong rebuttal of the eco loons, otherwise Youtube would have taken it down
A year 12 pupil at my daughter’s school is an extremely good cross country runner. She has declined an invitation to compete in the world championships in Australia because of all the climate damage caused by airline travel. She’s a vegan and lives with Mummy and Daddy on a smallholding in Devon. Her wacko ideas have had the Headmaster simpering in his weekly newsletter, had an article in ‘The Times’ comparing her the the green goblin of doom and now there’s a page on the BBC website singing the same praises. The world’s gone mad
Around half way through I decided I could not bear watching any more clips of truly hysterical, deluded and idiotic statements by the believers. I don’t know how you find the stamina to watch and collect this junk but I guess somebody’s got to do it!
Climate Debate has 171 subscribers on YouTube. Even if you have issues with YT, you can use your vote to give the guys a lift by subscribing to their channel here:
https://www.youtube.com/@climatedebate
I thought it was a very slick and interesting video. However it showed a lot of clips of climate extremists making their wild claims which I fear might serve to encourage those who are easily led. The video also had a huge amount of material which was rushed through at such a pace that it was not possible to take it all in.
The final conclusion that the proposed solutions to “climate change” will actually make things worse is correct, but I don’t agree that we should agree to accept that global warming is at this present time a dangerous threat. To do that is to concede something which there is no evidence for.
So, in summary, I think we need to keep making the rational case that the claims of impending doom have no basis in fact AND that the solutions proposed, such as net zero, are unworkable and will actually cause greater damage than the predicted effects of climate change.
I watched this video this morning, just got half way through 10/20 minutes…..a different data based perspective….
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
In the previous version I put Petr Beckmann’s “FREEZE AND SURRENDER” stickers on mah pickup.