Climate Hoax ?

London 2035 ?

Two years of work and diplomacy have culminated in the COP26 world climate summit agreeing a deal that, though predictably disappointing, offers at least ‘a lifeline’ to meeting the Paris agreement target of limiting temperature rise to 1.5C. At least, this is what most observers seem to agree. Summit president Alok Sharma said the target was still alive but ‘its pulse is weak’. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the planet was ‘hanging by a thread’.

Yet for many conservatives, the very notion that the countries of the Earth should be meeting to decide how potentially catastrophic climate change can be averted is absurd. The global warming/climate change theory is a hoax, a grand conspiracy, peddled by the world’s scientific community (or at least by 97 per cent of published climate scientists), who have succumbed to mass hysteria, or ‘groupthink’, which renders them incapable of rational thought, and puts them under the spell of a worldwide political movement to deprive us of our freedoms – the same movement, in fact, that concocted the Covid emergency.

Luckily, a very small minority of ‘climate change denial’ dissenters have escaped this spell, and, with the aid of a host of libertarian and neoconservative organisations, like the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, and Britain’s Institute of Economic Affairs, have provided us with an alternative objective view. Although all these have in the past enjoyed generous funding from the likes of ExxonMobil and the Koch foundations (Koch Industries is an oil and gas conglomerate), more recent funding has been from ‘dark money’, that is, through intermediate organisations which conceal the original funder.  

So, ranged on the one side, we have the anthropogenic global warming theory, according to which a dangerous warming of the world’s atmosphere is caused by carbon emissions originating from human industrial activity. And on the other side, we have the view that though there may be some global warming taking place, it is (a) nothing to worry about, and (b) not primarily caused by human activity.

Who are we to believe? For the 99.999 per cent of us who are not remotely qualified to understand the intricacies and complexities of glacial/interglacial cycle timescales, global glaciation thresholds, the comparative deposition of carbonates in geologic time periods, solar cycles and radiation variability, volcanic activity, changes in atmospheric composition, Earth orbital shifts, incoming and outgoing atmospheric radiation spectra etc. (the list could be extended indefinitely) – let alone understand how all of these interact to determine our climate – we have no means of knowing. And, so, we are reduced to latching onto websites that confirm our pre-formed view, and chucking cherry-picked ‘How do you explain this?’ facts or statistics at each other.

So, for example, we hear from climate change deniers that humans contribute only a tiny percentage of annual CO2 emissions, and that CO2 itself forms only a tiny percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere. Case proved. But if we read the rebuttal from climate change proponents, we hear an explanation which runs something like this: (1) Most CO2 emissions form part of the natural carbon cycle, which ensures that what is generated by one process is absorbed by another – which explains in turn why, before the industrial revolution, levels of CO2 had remained steady for thousands of years; (2) Because fossil fuel emissions are not part of this cycle, they are not absorbed, and the CO2 builds up in the atmosphere; (3) Because this process is cumulative, the result has been an unprecedented increase in CO2 concentrations in a short time period; (4) The absolute level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant to the effect ‘trace’ levels of CO2 have in trapping radiation and contributing to global warming

Which is the real science?

The latter account sounds more plausible, if only because it hints at a complex process and deeper scientific understanding, whereas the former does not. Go on to the ‘SkepticalScience’ website https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy and see over a hundred such ‘climate myths’ (that is, climate change denial myths) rebutted in complex detail. But for all we know, the latter could still all be spurious, all part of a brilliant worldwide hoax perpetrated by the scientific establishment.

All we have left, it seems, is a balance of probabilities. Which is the more likely: that the worldwide community of climate scientists (the 97 per cent) are engaged in a hoax; or that the scientific consensus is right, and that the 3 per cent are wrong, their advocates perpetrating a hoax of their own, aided and abetted by the fossil fuels industry?

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

31 Comments on Climate Hoax ?

  1. Dear Mr. Miller,
    Don’t you feel a little ashamed of asking, “Which is more likely…” in your last paragraph, when likelihood is, after all, not a satisfactory determiner when it comes to this and to other scientific questions? It’s at best a clumsy rhetorical gesture, or a cop out. We might, after all, ask which was more likely about any number of alternatives concerning not only controversial or undecided questions but questions about which erroneous conclusions had been reached. Everyone will be able to think of examples, but one of the great ones in our time was the discovery by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that ulcers were caused by Helicobacter pylori, not by neuroses or whatever, though I imagine it quite likely that anxiety, for instance, might exacerbate symptoms. Occasionally, though advocates of a position standing against majority opinion or convention be ridiculed and even hounded from their professions, the few in time overwhelm the many with the truth. Given the reception the few are likely to get within their professions and in society, with its professional activists ever ready to go on the attack, it is a wonder that they bother. Rhetorical sleights of hand like yours don’t help them. It’s as though you don’t recognise that science is, or should be, always open to question. You thus (inadvertently, I presume) encourage the status quo and imply that likelihood is a satisfactory premise from which to draw conclusions. It is a position that encourages falling into line, or staying safely within clearly drawn boundaries for political expedience, and it is antithetical to science. Your concluding question being beside the point, you wind up slanting the argument, playing politics yourself.

  2. Climate change data is paid for out of public funds by the many nations, but it seems that this data is never made accessible in its fullness to the public. Already a red light should be seen flashing.

    And the “modeling” one seems to hear about seems to be modeling theatre, not real modeling. To get an idea of what would be required to model climate, a grand project proposed long ago by people like John von Neumann, have a look at articles by the late Andre Majda of the Courant Institute. The whole issue is at the edge or beyond what can be done at present. Nobody really understands it.

  3. May I come in at the tail of a long and somewhat convoluted discussion? I thought Alistair Miller’s initial article summed up the situation pretty well. This “climate disaster” theory has been kicking around for at least 99 years (yes there were very dire predictions in 1922 – sorry I cannot find the article now), and repeated frequently since. All these have proved false, completely false.

    Most people in Britain are too young to remember the vile fogs we used to have in Britain, right up until our industrial decline, railway dieselisation and clean air legislation, all effectively in parallel, 1960s – 1970s. The cause – burning coal almost at ground level in factories, railways and houses. So, after we ramped down, others are ramping up, but with high level chimneys, probably with electrostatic precipitators (as with our own power stations). That is the simple scene re- coal – the small scene.

    The big scene is not POWER STATIONS in China, India or elsewhere, but simple virtually naked POWER. There is a war in progress, but only one side is doing the fighting – and winning without having to fire a shot, but by financial manipulation and gross corruption, lying propaganda on the widest possible front (including this COP con process, and the virus thing), infiltration throughout the entire infrastructure, pc, “woke” and de-platforming, unresisted alien population shifting, the absolute refusal of the populace to shift away from slavishly voting for the same useless-or-worse parties – a more basic reason.

    That reason is religion, and not just any religion but the authentic Christian religion. I realise that this word raises the hackles pretty widely, resulting in cries of “bigot” or worse. But look at the facts. When the United States and the Anglosphere were “Christianised”, embraced the “Protestant Work Ethic”, lived by the rules, recognised when they deviated, there was peace and prosperity, not perfection, because we are all human, but far above today’s chaos. Though Jesus said his followers would be hated (like now), yet when his religion was firmly established in the people as a whole, everybody benefited.

    One last thought about the decline of the west – where did the rot begin? In the churches when their leadership was infiltrated with unbelievers who threw over the basic doctrines of the faith, largely beginning in the late 19th century and spreading like a cancer through the whole body. There is only a faithful remnant left. But Jesus did promise to return and sort it all out; it’s now looking rather close to fulfilment – the occasion for relief, or fear.

    • Well said, couldn’t agree more.
      Someone already said it, either in this paper or elsewhere, but we need a British version of Bannon’s war room. Grassroots action which can be coordinated online. And someone like the “pamphleteer” Mark Levin who has written “American Marxism”. The book has sold over a million copies in a few months and is having a big impact on alerting Americans to the Marxist take over. Before the disease worsens here, which it surely will if America falls, maybe someone should write a “British Marxism”. Levin includes a brilliant chapter on climate which links the problem to the current global Marxist threat.

  4. Good try Alistair Miller but it’s futile trying to argue with climate change deniers. Their arguments cannot be falsified. Anyone who argues an opposing view must be (a) using bogus data (b) seeking academic promotion (c) part of an establishment conspiracy to remove our freedoms or (d) an agent of the KGB/China/Islamic State/Greenpeace/NASA/the EU (cross out those which do not apply). Dan Brown could not do better. But where are the Vatican, the Elders of the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar in all this?

  5. The “97% of climate scientists” was never a real number. It comes from one long-ago debunked literature review.

    And you don’t need a “brilliant worldwide hoax” to perpetuate a mistaken paradigm accepted by researchers as the narrative they need to talk up so as to get their research grants renewed.

    Shoddy research on your part if you didn’t even check the bogus 97% number. We can only wonder what else you got wrong.

    • Just for the record, the figure is cited by NASA. I quote from my article in the Spring edition:
      The source of NASA’s 97 per cent figure is a paper published in 2013, in the open access journal Environmental Research Letters, by John Cook and eight others, evaluating ‘the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature’. Cook’s paper found that of abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97 per cent endorsed it. The figure has been hotly contested by climate change deniers, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group funded by ExxonMobil, going so far as to issue a formal complaint against NASA for publicising it, and branding Cook’s study ‘fundamentally dishonest’. But a subsequent 2016 study ‘Consensus on Consensus’ co-authored by the authors of seven independent climate consensus studies, including Cook, confirmed the original result, concluding that ‘the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies’.
      All bogus, of course. But the figure was not conjured out of thin air.

      • No, wrong again, Alistair.

        The literature review I mentioned was not a NASA paper – NASA was not the source of the figure even if they repeated it. The 97% figure comes from an earlier, shoddily written, paper from before 2013 which repeatedly conflated _mentioning_ human-caused global warming with “endorsing” it.

        Repeating a figure from a paper as sloppy as that pretty much _is_ conjuring it out of thin air. Or perhaps out of thick air, if you want to believe the greenhouse effect is that large, despite solar variations being thousands of times larger. Or if you think of NASA as an academically credible source.

        The real number of climatologists who endorse human-caused global warming is around 60% and they are far more nuanced about that endorsement. As a journalist, I have interviewed climatologists who begged me to keep their doubts about the whole charade and their names off the record.

        If there’s a single profession where all the specialists I know personally were never convinced, it’s economists. They have daily experience in grappling with the shortcomings of mathematical models, and just roll their eyes at the idea of someone modelling anything as large as an ocean, never mind an atmosphere.

        If you genuinely want to understand what’s going on, check the following, all of which you can verify for yourself.

        (1) 30% of all the CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans in all of history has gone up there this century, because of India and China building a coal-fired power station on average once a week since 2000. Yet temperatures do not show the explosive, logarithmic growth any CO2-driven model would predict. In fact by some measures they have hardly risen at all.

        (2) Temperatures and sea levels rose earlier in the 20th century, _before_ the heaviest CO2-adding decades of the postwar period.

        (3) There is a commercial market for high-end luxury beach villas, particularly in countries supposedly threatened by sea-level rise, like the Maldives and the Seychelles. Submersion of these island-group countries has been predicted since the 1990s, yet the world’s richest people (and by extension the world’s most expensively-advised people) are still buying luxury properties at locations which are _exactly_ at sea level. Even a sea-level rise of one foot over a couple of decades would have a huge impact on the future value of those properties. Are the prices dropping as a result?

        (4) Valentina Zharkova, at Northumbria University, has with her team developed a model of the inside of the sun that historically retrodicts all the cooling and warming periods known in human history, and she thinks we are entering a cooling period right now. Solar effects are of course massively larger than any puny effects humans might have on the atmosphere mediating those solar changes at the margin, and the sun has indeed been cooling since the 1980s.

        If like me you’ve been watching published news about the sunspot cycles for over a decade, you’d know that each of the last three solar 11.5-year cycles have been cooler than the one before.

        All this, my four numbered points, is not arcane knowledge that only NASA or climatologists know – it’s in the public domain and easy to obtain and verify.

        So we have two possibilities: either (i) there _is_ human-caused global warming, but it has been masked by much larger solar cooling and we don’t need to carry out massively wasteful and inhuman misallocations like closing down fossil fuel to misinvest in unreliable solar and “renewables” or (ii) (much more likely) none of this was true in the first place and we don’t need to carry out — blah blah as above.

        If there is any human-caused global-warming effect at all (highly unlikely), then it might have saved us from the imminent Little Ice Age scientists were predicting in the 1970s, and which unlike “climate change”, is/was a prediction based on actual science.

        If manmade global warming exists, it’s bought us a couple of decades respite, and we should probably make a special effort to burn more fossil fuels for some more decades. Fossil fuels aren’t running out, and in the solar-cooling context it’s clear they’re good for us.

        • Is this the Valentina Zharkova whose 2019 paper claiming the sun’s magnetic activity explains climate change was formally retracted by the publishers of the journal ‘Scientific Reports’ following a formal investigation? Subsequent peer review was damning and persuaded the publishers that the article’s conclusions were founded on incorrect assumptions concerning the orbits of the Earth and the Sun.
          You will say that the peer reviews were bogus etc. But still!

          • Yes, Alistair, that’s the same Valentina Zharkova.

            I’m glad you’re at least partly responding to one of my four points. Now we just have to move on from Argument By Authority (peer review) to actually discussing the publicly agreed scientific content:

            – the uncontested fact the sun has been cooling for four decades,
            – CO2 changes not correlating to temperature changes,
            – the absence of information leaking into the sea-level luxury property market.

            We’re almost there!

  6. Then there’s the race/religion hoax, being played on TV this very instant.
    Similar to the Climate Thing, there is money, power, and celebrity to be had for persons-of-other-identity to say anti-factual things about whites. And these, erm, critics of whites, are free to express their feelings about not getting everything they want, when and how they want it. This is easier to do, and far more lucrative, in Western places than in non-Western places. Also similar to the Climate Fact-Empty Thing, there are no incentives, nor is there personal safety, in saying obvious truths about the nett costs to the West of certain groups of non-Western provenance.

  7. All you have to know to understand what is going on is that the whole concept of ‘climate change’ was dreamt up in the misinformation department of the KGB, instigated at the UN bu the Canadian communist Maurice Strong who was in cahoots with China and taken up in more recent times by the CCP. The Marxist infiltrated Greenpeace and other environmental movements just as they infiltrated the CND and other anti-nuclear groups in the West and they are behind the protesters against fracking and the opening of new coal mines. Its aim from the outset was and remains the crippling of Western industry by raising the cost of energy and it succeeding. And all the while China Russia and India continue to build coal-fired power stations. Russia and China were not at COP26 because their governments know full well that the whole business is a lie, the biggest lie in history, and they have no intention of mirroring the slow economic sucide of the West.

    • The self-destruction of British industry from various directions appeals to the self-abnegating guilt that is the chief survival of Christianity and has its parallel with CND whereby unilateral military suicide supposedly sets an example to all the other nuclear powers, Communist, Hindu or Muslim.
      Incidentally, the communist maxim “From each according to his ability and to each according his need” (forgive the heteronormative pronouns) was expected by Stalin and Khruschev alike to be operative only at a certain level of automation. What happens when “need” overwhelms “ability”? Answer: the NHS and Channel migration.

  8. There is no such thing as CONSENSUS in science. It takes only one scientist as long as it is true.
    So choose your preferred scientist. Mine is Professor of physics at Princeton (of Einstein fame) called William Happer.
    See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw&t=5s
    Why do the alarmists continually miss the targets that their modelling predicts?
    Have you thought about how difficult it is to measure the AVERAGE temperature of the planet. Is it really possible to be accurate to within 4 degrees?
    Why is it that carbon dioxide increase follows temperature rise over time not the other way around? (see Cool it, B.Lomberg)
    I don’t need to be a Professor of physics, know anything about the gas laws or have any real insights on climate change at all. If I can ask questions like those above and find that the experts are wanting then I’m entitled to tell them they’re wasting my time and more importantly my money.
    All the while China is building a massive empire with military capabilities the west cannot match – witness the new Chinese hypersonic nuclear weapon system capable of delivering hundreds of warheads in seconds and unmatched by America or NATO as a whole.
    So what is the REAL existential threat then ?
    Our priorities in the west are utterly out of step with reality.

    • There are real existential threats in the infiltration of Chinese, Black, and Muslim agents throughout all Western institutions. The pretence that China is a military threat is a useful pretence -and let us keep in mind that it is indeed a pretence.

      • I’m not sure we need a war with China (over Taiwan) plus a war with Russia (over Belarus) plus another with France (over the Channel) plus one more with Syria-Iran [vide RAF-IDF training flights] (over Israel).

  9. Nice try. But the faultline in this article is that it takes “the science” too seriously.
    What do I mean? Science in such a field as “climate change” is, or should never be settled, all components of the debate being permanently up for refutation. Nothing in “science” is ever settled. Methods of formulating hypotheses, and of testing them, have to be as rigorous as to resist the upcoming challenge to them. That is of course if we are talking about science and not “post normal science”, whereby the search for truth is replaced by the concept of “quality”ie that its the quality of the presuppositions and commitments at stake wot matters.
    Let us assume that we accept this statement. The key word here is “quality”, for which the criteria in a free market of ideas are never settled because they are subjective. In an oligopolistic market the criteria are settled by market power, ie by politics.
    Another way of saying the same thing is that as soon as science meets politics, it stops being science and becomes politics. The criteria for judging politics include a look at motives and methods, the who-gets-what of a power struggle, the theatre of lies and half-lies which if repeated often enough, and with conviction, as Goebbels reminded us, have a habit of becoming “truth”.
    The bottom line: we don’t need to know what “the science” says, so much as who says what, why, when, and how. We judge the outcome by the tried and tested tools of politics. To be credible in the climate change debate, we have all to be skeptical. If we fall short of that crucial criterium, we lack credibility. The beauty of this is that this is the only reasonable conclusion we can take from the criteria deployed by the climate change brigade. On their judgement, we should all be skeptics now.

    • But the science and “science” of it are not the actual battlefronts.

      Nor is this Climate/Energy Thing a matter of the politics of it all -not in the political terms that were understood in an era now passed.

      The actual battlefront is in the inner boardrooms -the boardrooms of investors and their technical advisors, of politicians and their civil/public servants, of Big Biz, Big Tech, Big Media, and even Big Education.

      This is not a debate.

      This is better assessed within the framework of Civil War.

      The nature of this Civil War is being shaped by assessments within sub-groups of elites, of the various institutions named above, as to what power over what resources is worth fighting for. The outcome of this Civil War is not predictable. And in the chaos that looms upon us, it might even be that smart, tough, resilient groups of productive young non-elites will make things hard for the older elites.

      The operational systems that support the current elite’s institutions are fast collapsing. We have entered a new superstitious age. The empiricism and steely-eyed capabilities required for organising and managing effective/efficient operational systems are being replaced (have been replaced) by the idiocies of affirmative action -and the associated feel-goods and stupidities of identiticism and woke, suicidal anti-Westernism.

      “Nothing works anymore” is a cry that has been heard increasingly over recent decades, across the West among the ordinary people.

      Much worse is to come -to put it lightly.

  10. A very pressing and actually real environmental matter is the amount of plastic that ends up in rivers and then the oceans.

    But the solution to this problem would require the peoples of the non-West to be more mindful with what they do with their trash.

    And besides, this problem does not have an immediately obvious solution that includes the West transferring massive amounts of money to the non-West, esp to the cargo-cultists whose numbers are expanding rapidly, and likely without cease.

  11. The 97% scientist figure is often challenged and in any case facts are not decided by votes. David Bellamy was cancelled for saying so.
    (You don’t need to be scientist to discuss science: the non-scientists who challenged the lockdown extremist ‘experts’ have been proved right.)

    Two facts.
    Water vapour, a greenhouse gas, at 2% is 500 times more prevalent than plantfood CO2 (dangerously low at 400ppm – below 200ppm everything dies).
    The Milankovitch Cycles explain the slight melting in the north and the increased icing in the south. The earth tilts and wobbles on its axis. Newton thought the cycle was 72 years and would end in a topple-over in 2060. Milankovitch corrected his maths to 29,000 years.
    Two expts all can try.
    Check the forecast, rain/not rain and temperature for your location against reality. If it’s right 50% of the time, you’re doing well. How can it be right for 2050?
    Check the temp your car shows on a shopping trip. It will vary by between 1c and 3c. Which is the ‘right’ one? This matters even more as the claimed rise is less than half a degree.
    Not one of the calamity prediction of the last 60 years has turned out to be true. Science is an empirical endeavour, no?

  12. Evidence suggests global warming but the causation is a matter for proper debate.
    Measures to reduce possibe impacts whatever China ever does are necessary.
    The wicked whites, especially Anglo-Saxons, are now blamed for the industrial revolution along with all our historic “crimes”, so we are expected to help the “developing” world which seems quite content to produce fossil-fuel emissions and/or large families. “Open the door, Richard, and let ’em in.”

  13. Even more fundamental:

    1. There are no plausible bodies of research -let alone no plausible research results- consistent with the assertion that climate factors exceed historical extremes -where history, in this case, would correctly extend back at least to the end of the obvious extremes of the last ice-age.

    2. There are no bodies of research -let alone there are no research results- that are consistent with the assertion that the causes of new climate extremes (if there are any) are not due to natural variations.

    These minimum requirements for belief in human-caused climate change do not exist, as far as I know.

      • No, you have that backwards, David.

        If the denialists are wrong we face some harm.
        If the warmists are wrong we face immense, almost inconceivably serious harm.

        “Greening” the globe in line with the atmospheric-CO2-warming theory involves huge waste and destruction, not least of life expectancies in the Third World. It’s orders of magnitudes more harm than the (almost certainly incorrect) claim the globe might warm by a degree in the next few decades.

        Effectively limiting CO2 emissions involves

        – stopping the poor world from industrialising, which in turn demands

        – somehow forcing India and China to stop building coal-fired power stations …this simply isn’t going to happen unless you envisage a vastly destructive world war to achieve it
        – stopping Africa from industrialising, which would likewise amount to recolonising the entire continent by force
        – reversing decades of economic progress in the poor world, and it’s economic progress which has extended life spans, cut child mortality, cut family sizes, and thereby halted the anticipated overpopulation problem in its tracks. Demographers already know the global population is going to turn around and start falling at around 11 billion, and fewer people are starving or on the edge of starvation at 8 billion than when there were 3 billion of us. Ehrlich was comprehensively incorrect.

        To repeat, it is totally wrong that “if the /global warmists/ are wrong, we face some harm” – if their beliefs are false we face vast vast harm, orders of magnitude bigger than any harm that a foot rise in sea levels worldwide can cause.

        Immense increases in the welfare of humanity have been achieved by a couple of decades of freer trade, totally upending Malthusian claims in the 1970s that resource limitations would enforce global austerity. This prediction was deeply falsified.

        The global warming theory is not a safe bet on the side of sanity – it’s an uneducated and very dangerous attempt to reimpose a revived fashion for economic planning just when free-ish, slightly freer trade liberated billions of poor people from the misery of earlier fashions for economic planning.

        It’s absolutely not a safe bet on the safe side of uncertainty – it’s far far more reckless with much greater costs than anything that follows from taking a dodgy climate model with the big pinch of salt it deserves.

          • Ever been to Dubai David? The sun shines practically 365 days.
            Ive never seen a single solar panel anywhere. Solar salesman have been trying trying to sell them out there for years – hopeless task. They’re just not interested. Why would you when fuel is so cheap? Houses run AirCon most of the year, 24 hours a day, all on fossil fuels.