Be interesting to see what happens

We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.

Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.

Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate. When there is an article on smoking, newspapers and broadcasters no longer include lobbyists claiming there are no links to cancer. When there’s a round-the-world yacht race we don’t hear flat-earthers given airtime: “This is madness; they’ll sail off the edge!”

There’s a workable model for covering fringe views – which is to treat them as such. They don’t need to be ridiculed, just expected to challenge the evidence with better evidence, and otherwise ignored. As campaigners and thinkers who are led by science and the precautionary principle, and who wish to debate the real and vital issues arising from human-triggered climate change, we will not assist in creating the impression that climate denial should be taken seriously by lending credence to its proponents, by entertaining ideas that lack any basis in fact. Therefore we will no longer debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real. There are plenty of vital debates to be had around climate chaos and what to do about it; this is simply no longer one of them. We urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing.


1) What’s their working definition of climate change denial? Do I qualify for example?

2) Are they going to complain when the phone stops ringing for their opinions if that’s the way the broadcasters decide to go?

34 thoughts on “Be interesting to see what happens”

  1. This is political therefore if you are tainted, there is nothing you can do. The definition will be modified to suit any change in your posture. Best to follow the party line and keep on promoting carbon taxes so at least you seem to be chanting the mantra.

  2. Who doesn’t love the fact that when the beast from the east struck it was “just weather” and then when we had a heatwave it was definite proof of global warming.

  3. BlokeInTejasinNormandy

    Bizarre that this clown car full of notables, with not a detectable (at a quick glance) scientist among them believe that they have any basis for credibility in this matter.

    The simplest description of the situation is that one can process measurements to show heating or stability as one might wish; but that there is no understood model to explain what those who choose to process the data as showing heating is demonstrated by the fact that there is not a model available which produces as output what they claim to measure.

    That is, nobody knows what’s going on, if indeed something is.

  4. The keyword for vhis cunt-fest is “de-platform” which is what they are presently about.

    We need to ensure they don’t succeed and then we’ll see who is persuaded by who.

    Climate change is Marxist cockrot.

  5. The keyword for this cunt-fest is “de-platform” which is what they are presently about.

    We need to ensure they don’t succeed and then we’ll see who is persuaded by who.

    Climate change is Marxist cockrot.

  6. Once the ‘deniers’ are identified they can be sent to the camps for re-eduction. Lucas, Murphy et al will decide who is a denier

  7. Selected headlines from the Grauniad through the ages;

    1903: The young Jewish scientist Alfred Eisenstaen has been arrested for spreading heretical theories of physics. Radley Cun Cave, MP for Cambridge South (Lab), said The science of St Isaac has been settled for hundreds of years and so a special squad from MI6 (Inquisitions) was despatched to Switzerland to “no platform” this heretical Jewboy.

    1972; Once again, the Euro moon module Freedom 24 has missed the lunar surface by 50,000 k. Adolfo Hilter II announced that suspicious radio signals had been detected emanating from the USA.

  8. “Are they going to complain when the phone stops ringing for their opinions if that’s the way the broadcasters decide to go?”

    I suspect not. These end-of-the-world eco-scares always go through a cycle – alarm, activism, advertising virtuous products, regulation, grab lots of public money, failure of predictions to come true, silence. Then they start again on a new alarm.

    It happened with over-population, pesticides, food additives, acid rain, the ozone hole, peak oil, resource depletion, deforestation, species loss, power lines, mobile phones, genetically modified crops, and more. It just goes on and on, and every single time the public have complete amnesia over all the previous times they’ve made end-of-the-world predictions that failed to come true.

    At the end of the cycle, there’s no grand refutation, repeal of the regulations, paying back of the money stolen, or jail time. They just quietly move on to other topics and slowly stop mentioning it. It vanishes from the public consciousness without a ripple. On global warming, most of the media got the memo several years ago. It’s only the die-hard professional loopies who are only just now catching up.

    The phone has already stopped ringing. They’re just saying “Well, that’s because we didn’t want to talk to you about it anyway.”

  9. @NiV

    ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’

    — H. L. Mencken

  10. That can’t be the longest list of never-heard-ofs ever published, but it must be in the top 10.

  11. I quote from Warm Words, a 2006 report from the IPPR, a leftwing gobshite outfit:


    To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now
    need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply
    behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to
    be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.
    Thus the de-platforming is a long-practiced and intentional tactic. As is the later mentioned small actions tactic, where you convince everybody to do their bit, however small or useless, to get buy-in to the scam.

    My spellchecker says I got gobshite wrong. I’m sure I didn’t.

  12. Is there a Nobel Laureate of any kind (not necessarily in a relevant specialisation) anywhere in that list? if there is, I missed it. Although I expect Murphy hopes for a future economics award for investing MMT.

  13. Some years ago a sample of scientists (discipline unspecified) were asked two questions and 97% answered in the affirmative. If you can’t do the same then you are a denier.
    The first question was “has the world warmed since 1800” .
    Given that neither the Thames nor any other river has frozen sufficiently to allow an ice fair since the early 1800s, and 1816 was the last year without a summer, my answer to that is yes thank God.
    The second question was “has human activity played a part in that”.
    Well all that soot from Victorian chimneys likely slowed the process, maybe CO2 emissions sped it up, the clean air that started to be applied in the 50s sped things up, there have been changed in albedo, so yes man has had an effect. Nowhere near as great as milankovitch cycles,variations in solar activity or ocean oscillations, but an effect nonetheless.
    So I am not a denier,I have given the expected answers.
    Nonetheless I don’t think we need to worry as we’re still cooler than the medieval warm period, never mind the Holocene optimum, and we can’t do much about it anyway.
    I note that the temperature stabilised once we introduced annual gabfests following on from Kyoto. CO2 has however continued to rise. It is therefore impossible that CO2 reduction has brought about stability. It is more likely that the annual COP has.

  14. No wonder they are struggling, Begging for money every time you click on their stupid website.

    It should be mandatory that every link you provide to this lot comes with a warning: Begging and Broke website alert, Tim.

  15. Bloke no Longer in Austria


    and of that survey, 77 bothered to give an answer. So they couldnt even manage uninamity on this simple questions, which suggests a couple of spoofers at work. I can’t remember how many were asked in the round-robin e-mail, I think that it was 3,000.

    Ed Davey used to quote thsi figure in his speeches, as if the fact that he is a LibDem was not enough to prove that he is a twat.

  16. “Some years ago a sample of scientists (discipline unspecified) were asked two questions and 97% answered in the affirmative. If you can’t do the same then you are a denier.”

    Nope. Not correct.

    You’re thinking of Doran and Zimmerman (2009) “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. They did specify disciplines, and the number was not 97%.

    If you read the actual paper the original ‘97% consensus’ claim was based on, and see the percentages they really reported (note also the third column in figure 1), I think you’ll find it very funny!

    See also the explanation of the 79 vs 77 confusion:

  17. We should listen to the climate scientists Peter Tatchell and Bea Campbell. Prof Churchill as well.

    “We are no longer willing to lend our credibility…….2

    I’ve got news for you, you bunch of cunts, my last shite has more credibility than you lot.

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    And yet when it’s pointed out that 97% of economists think their economic policies are bat shit crazy it’s the consensus that’s wrong.

  19. “And yet when it’s pointed out that 97% of economists think their economic policies are bat shit crazy it’s the consensus that’s wrong.”

    If they didn’t even bother to read their own ‘97% consensus’ paper, why would anyone expect them to pay any attention to yours? ‘Scientific accuracy’ in political matters is optional.

  20. How about this from Freeman Dyson, emeritus professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton “The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in …”

    Is that enough credibility for debate with Mr Tatchell?

  21. “The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans.”

    Sigh. I guess the term “very good” is relative.

    The typical climate model represents the atmosphere and ocean as a set of blocks 100 km square horizontally, and around 0.1-1 km vertically, each block is treated as a single point, with uniform temperature, pressure, and velocity, and then a discrete approximation to the fluid dynamics equations applied to estimate where it will go in 30 minute time steps. Aerodynamicists doing things like modelling wing lift reckon you need to get down to about 0.1-1 mm resolution before viscosity starts to smooth out the weird chaotic behaviour of the Navier-Stokes equations and gives reliable results.

    The motions climate models show do look vaguely weather-like, in the same sort of way that ‘Super Mario Kart’ looks a lot like Formula 1 racing.

    But I agree with Dyson that the fluid motion is a lot better modeled than all the small-scale clouds, aerosols and chemistry. I’d just not describe it as “a very good job”.

  22. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The climate models can’t even retrodict without a stupid amount of phenomenological tweaking. The idea we should utterly derange the world economy on the basis of simulations whose hindsight is 20/200 (at best) is a bit questionable.

  23. Whatever the ‘problem’, the answer is always a transfer of money and power away from you and towards them. Having re-read some of Henry Hazlitt (thanks Tim and DJ) this is Bastiat’s broken window fallacy on stilts.
    Of course, if you challenge their solution they always deflect to say you are denying the problem. Theoretically, the same logic that says only climate scientists should be able to define and discuss the problem means they are not qualified to define and discuss the solution. Except that isn’t correct because reasons.

  24. Alex, if Freeman Dyson didn’t finish that sentence with “ and let die”, I’m going to be sorely disappointed.

  25. “97% of priests believe in God.”

    I doubt it.

    “97% of government scientists agree with their employer.”

    No they don’t. Any more than 97% of employees anywhere agree with their employer. Most of them know well enough to keep their heads down and stay out of the politics.

    (And as I just pointed out, their survey didn’t report 97% of scientists agreeing with anything. Hasn’t anybody ever read it? It’s only two pages long.)

  26. Does anyone dispute climate change? I thought the political argument was about how much human activity contributes to it, and whether changing that activity would make any difference. Whereas scientific arguments range over all the normal sorts of arcane areas that scientists argue about.

  27. @ Wonko the Sane
    Sadly,some people do dispute it because they are so totally convinced that the AGW shills are lying about everything that they assume that it must be untrue because the AGW shills say that it is true.
    The argument should be “Is this bad? If so, what can we do about it?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *