Lecture on climate science

I went to the GWF lecture given this year by Professor Judith Curry. As a non climate scientist I do not campaign against the establishment scientific view on global warming. I have asked various questions in speeches and writings about the data, models and predictions. Professor Curry’s book and lecture argues that the fundamental proposition adopted by the UN and most governments that the world is warming caused by man made CO 2 is not proven and subject to major uncertainties.

She confirmed that most of the climate models ignore changes in solar intensity and in volcanic activity and struggle with winds and clouds. She said there is no good agreed explanation for warming periods in earth history prior to man made CO 2. She did not rate the chances of current models being right that highly. This blog gives those of you who do argue the establishment science is wrong to briefly make your case.

I will stick to making 3 main arguments about current policy.

1, It is absurd for the UK to close down energy using activities and to keep our oil and gas in the ground if we replace them with imports that increase world CO 2

2.The Green transition cannot work without widespread consumer buy in, which will need better and cheaper products than heat pumps and dear electric vehicles

3.Some of the proposed products of electric transition increase CO 2 especially as quite often our system cannot supply renewable power to run  them.


  1. John Kirkham
    May 3, 2024

    Judith Curry sounds like good news.

    1. PeteB
      May 3, 2024

      Indeed it does and indeed she is! It also shows 1) The Science isn’t settled (as many claim), and 2) Not all scientists believe in human driven climate change (again as many claim).

      1. Hope
        May 3, 2024

        Meanwhile Lord Slim Cameron announcing yesterday to give/waste corrupt Ukraine £3 billion of our taxes each year for as long as it takes!! How is the war in Ukraine helping the planet?

        Bombs, destruction, vehicles- yet happy to buy coal and gas from……Russia! More money for another war in Gaza while Qatar hosts Hamas leaders as the UK buys gas from…..Qatar!

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          May 4, 2024

          Maria Zakharova’s statements at the weekly briefing:

          ▫️Statements by British Foreign Minister David Cameron about Kiev’s right to use British weapons to strike Russia are an open admission that the West is fighting against the Russian Federation at the hands of Ukrainians;

          ▫️ To make statements about approving strikes on the Russian Federation, you need to “suffer from amnesia” so as not to remember the country’s nuclear status.

    2. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Not bad for a Geography grad. That other mad Geography graduate Theresa May gave us the pure evil and moronic net zero religion. This nodded through, without even a vote, by nearly all of out mad, deluded or bought, virtue signally MPs.

    3. BOF
      May 3, 2024

      Judith Curry is far from alone. At least 1,900 scientists can be found on WORLD CLIMATE DECLARATION.

    4. glen cullen
      May 3, 2024

      She was one of the first exponents of global warming back in the 90s ….but now that she criticises the modelling forecast data, you wont see her on the BBC nor Sky …she is good news, she exmaines the data

    5. Ian wragg
      May 3, 2024

      Today we are Importing 23.6% of our electricity, the biggest supplier being france. This gives them extraordinary influence on government decisions because we are unable to meet requirements from our own generation.
      The quest for nut zero is putting the UK in a very precarious position especially related to defence and control of our fishing grounds.
      The wipeout of the useless tory party has begun but it is far to left wing and arrogant to realise this.
      I say this with sadness having been a supporter since Maggie Thatcher.
      RIP Conservatives.

      1. glen cullen
        May 3, 2024

        How can importing energy be deemed energy security ….what madness

      2. Stred
        May 4, 2024

        Excellent article on how Labour and Conservative energy policy will lead to blackouts by 2028, imports or no imports.
        The closing of coal, gas and nuclear will leave a huge generation gap. This is without adding the extra electricity needed if they succeed in using heat pumps and electric transport.

    6. Peter
      May 3, 2024

      Off topic. Why are London election results taking so long?

      Nobody is working through the night nowadays. Penny pinching, or delaying things deliberately to reduce the impact of bad news?

      1. Sharon
        May 3, 2024

        @ Peter I think London takes a while, because there are a lot of constituencies within a lot of boroughs.

      2. Stred
        May 3, 2024

        Khan bought electronic voting machines like the Democrats did. Perhaps the automation takes longer to get the correct result.

    7. David
      May 3, 2024

      So are Dr. Roger Pielke and Dr. Steve Koonin. The 2nd. is a physicist who had a career in business, government and academia and wrote a 2021 book called ‘Unsettled’. He stresses the overriding need for scientific integrity. If only.

      I doubt we know the exact split between ‘natural’ and ‘human-induced’ causes. Some was probably natural, if only to explain the observed surface temperature rise from about 1910 to 1940. Some may well be from humans, explaining the slightly faster rise since 1970.

      By the way, 65-70% of Denmark uses heat networks and it may rise towards 80%. In built-up areas these have advantages over individual electric heat pumps. Historically, some UK officials were highly reluctant to take any interest in a small country of only five million. Rather arrogant, I always thought, given that Denmark is now in a fortunate position relative to either the UK or Germany.

      1. Mark
        May 4, 2024

        Denmark is running some interesting risks. It is heavily interconnected with Norway, the UK, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands and hopes to be able to close its only substantial dispatchable generator – a large coal fired CHP plant that is important to those heat networks. Norway is threatening not to renew the interconnector agreement when it expires. Most of its capacity is wind, but the wind doesn’t always blow.

        Very good analysis of the Danish situation can be found at pfbach.dk in the well informed commentaries By Per Frederik Bach, who also has useful insights into the wider Nordic and EU scene.

  2. Mark B
    May 3, 2024

    Good morning.

    4. There is little point in trying to cut the amount of CO2 when countries such as India and China are building vast numbers of coal fired power stations.

    As the Black Knight would say about our pitiful contribution CO2 output and so called Climate Change: “It is barely but a scratch !”

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      “There is little point in trying to cut the amount of CO2” anyway as a bit more plant food is, on balance, a net good anyway.

      1. glen cullen
        May 3, 2024

        True – the planets getting greener …thanks to co2

    2. Everhopeful
      May 3, 2024

      But making fun of knighthood and maybe the “British stiff upper lip”, as MP was in that sketch?
      Undermining us as most TV comedy did/does? ( not much sit com now I think? Mission accomplished!)
      Mr Cleese speaking on TV etc. does not appear over pleased at the way things have turned out.
      The “groundbreaking” liberal elites of the 60s should have been more careful what they wished for!
      But I daresay they manipulated like young protesters are today.

      1. Everhopeful
        May 3, 2024

        *were manipulated

    3. Hope
      May 3, 2024

      The little Usurper with the brains of Baldrick!

    4. Mitchel
      May 3, 2024

      The ever deluded Anthony Blinken in Saudi this week for a WEF conference:”We approach the relationship with China from a position of strength.”

      Is that why Blinken has made two fruitless visits to Beijing this year-as has Janet Yellen(wandering round like a confused bag lady),while China has sent no top level delegation to Beijing?

      Great also to see Russian troops arriving at the “American” drone base in Niger(their biggest in Africa,only recently built at great expense)-as the Americans were being tardy in responding to the Niger government’s demand to leave.Chad,Niger’s neighbour to the east,has now also ordered the Americans to leave its territory.While uranium-rich Niger’s southern neighbour,oil-rich Nigeria,has already announced its intention to join BRICS and it’s northern neighbour,gas-rich Algeria is a long-time Russian ally gooing back to Soviet times and the war of independence.

      It’s over(bar,possibly, a few more wars)!Africa’s resources are going east,not north or west.

      1. Mitchel
        May 3, 2024

        “China has sent no top level delegation to Beijing” should of course read “to Washington”!

    5. Guy+Liardet
      May 3, 2024

      Take a look at the Keeling curve at the Moana Loa Hawaii observatory. The rise in CO2 is unstoppable whether natural or Asian coal burning. Why didn’t the COVID deindustrialisation show up on the magnified idiosyncratic sawteeth? Because it’s all natural? So attempts to reduce emissions are pointless. It’s very doubtful that CO2 has a measurable effect on the climate. So net zero is pointless and futile.

  3. Lifelogic
    May 3, 2024

    Prof. Curry is right as are your three sensible points.

    I would add:-

    4. The technology pushed to save CO2 – EVs, heat-pumps, walking, cycling, wind, solar, public transport… (when fully and properly accounted for with back up and manufacturing energy considered) do not save significant CO2 anyway and we have no spare low CO2 energy to power them with anyway.

    5. A bit more CO2 is on balance a net positive and will make very little difference to any warming effects as the current CO2 levels already trap most of the relevant frequencies anyway. Slightly warmer is a net good too.

    6. We live in a period of a relative dearth of CO2 (plant, tree, seaweed and crop food) anyway in historic terms.

    1. Bryan Harris
      May 3, 2024

      Lifelogic +1

      Just to take up your one point about Co2 being useful – It currently is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

      Just imagine if it ever got to 0.06% how our food sources would blossom and grow like never before. As far as our food industry is concerned we need more Co2.

    2. glen cullen
      May 3, 2024

      ‘Alder Hey hospital said following advice from Merseyside Fire and Rescue it had “temporarily restricted the parking of electric vehicles EVs in its car parks’ BBC reporting ……the future is green

      1. Lifelogic
        May 3, 2024

        Yet people take them on ferries and park them under their houses!

        1. Lifelogic
          May 3, 2024

          Often worse are cheap electric scooters recharging in the hallways.

  4. Javelin
    May 3, 2024

    I’m glad you are open to the possibility that man made climate change is a fraud.

    – climate change is natural and due to astronomical and geological changes

    – the temperature record is highly manipulated. When the raw data is collated it is adjusted upwards to account for everything from previous thermometers being less accurate, or moving of a weather station or concrete or buildings around a weather station. A guy has gone into huge detail and has a trove of records to prove the temperature record has been adjusted in line with temperature rises.

    – even the sea level record has been manipulated. The sea level was rising rapidly since the last ice age but slowed down 8000 years ago. The day satellites began monitoring sea level rises the record came under the control of climate scientists, and not marine authorities. Then the sea level rose at the same linear rate but twice as fast. Literally on the same day.

    – Temperature is still going up slowly since the last ice age. The earth is in a cycle where bacteria and plants in the northern tundra either push or pull Co2. As the Co2 is released it gets hotter then the cO2 is pulled in by plants and bacteria and it gets colder. Getting hotter takes place over 20,000 years. Getting colder takes place over 80,000 years. This has nothing to do with man made anything.

    – We have had 10 ice ages. Each lasting 100,000 years where the ice sheet is over Europe for half the time. The land we walk on shows climate change is real but not man made. If we managed to warm up the earth we could get out this cycle and the climate would be more stable. More cO2 would be better for plants and life. This has been the state of the earth for tens of millions of years previously when we had giant mammals.

    1. BOF
      May 3, 2024

      This is in line with all my own reading on the subject.

    2. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Well humans certainly have some effects with different crops, different atmosphere make up, urban heat island concrete, building and wind farms changes the winds, solar farms change heat reflection and adsorption compared to crops or forests, farming different crops likewise. Millions of other factors too the main ones are orbits, sun activity and sunspots, cloud and water vapour activity, volcanic activity, planet wobble, urban heat islands…

    3. MFD
      May 3, 2024

      I have no scientific knowledge, i’m just a simple mechanic BUT when I had to wear a bobcap and gloves to keep warm yesterday morning – then to be told its the HOTTEST day, I’m sure you can understand why I refuse to believe any that the BBC says!
      Its a total scam!

      1. Lifelogic
        May 3, 2024

        Indeed, but what do you mean by “just a mechanic” give me more mechanics, plumbers, roofers, builders, engineers… and far fewer HR people, lawyers, sociologists, politicians, media studies people any day.

        1. IanT
          May 3, 2024

          We don’t need Tradesmen LL – according to JSO we are all going to “boil in our own sweat” very soon.

          Anyway, half of our young people already have degrees in useful subjects such Victorian Flower Arranging and the Evils of Empire – thanks to Tony Blair. The other half are unable to work having been triggered by the thought of getting out of bed in the morning. So there’s no one left to train in ‘Trades’.
          So you can see that as our Country (and indeed the Planet) is clearly doomed, there’s really no point in our Government spending money (they don’t have) training Doctors, let alone Plumbers, Mechanics and Bricklayers.

      2. glen cullen
        May 3, 2024

        The BBC & Sky will report breaking news that its, yet again, the hottest day of the year ….till mid-summer

  5. formula57
    May 3, 2024

    I note Professor Curry is reported by The Spectator magazine in 2015 as not disputing that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet but she says the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear.

    That the public is being misled by the scientific community alarmists is highly probable and I have ceased to be concerned about climate change. If I am wrong the ingenuity and prowess of Gen. Z can be relied upon to save the day, possibly.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      All other things being equal then a bit more atmospheric CO2 can (rather slightly) warm the world but the millions of other variables and feedbacks such as cloud activity are not remotely equal.

  6. Peter Wood
    May 3, 2024

    GWPF Lecture.
    I do hope you enjoyed it and will be able to encourage others in your party to take a more sceptical view of the CO2 issue, and argue against the self-harming NZ madness . I don’t suppose you saw any Labour party MP’s there? It is they who need to learn more about this evolving issue, going by today’s political indication.
    If you want to learn more, try Dr. William Happer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ7UZjFDHU

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Prof. Happer is spot on, a sensible and honest physicist who is not led by grant funding or fashion.

      The death of science, now largely controlled by grant funding, professional bodies, government propaganda… is evil. See the excellent Death of Science book Angus Dalgleish. This on climate, vaccines, medicine, Covid origins…

    2. Peter Wood
      May 3, 2024

      Here’s the video of the lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqsZV8i3O1E
      Is that Richard Tice front row right, first in camera shot? Did you have a chat with him Sir J.?

    3. glen cullen
      May 3, 2024

      We’ll be having a lot more of labour’s net-zero very very soon …..all thanks to this tory leadership

    4. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      This is Prof. Curry’s GWPF lecture


  7. Javelin
    May 3, 2024

    Here’s something to think about. People who were damaged or died by the covid vaccine were told yesterday by their own lawyer ms that in mid 2020 the big pharmas released a “note” saying the vaccine could caught heart problems. Therefore they were warned.

    So … do you remember the Government telling everybody or did they just stop saying the vaccine was harmless. Guess what. They did the latter.

    The pharma companies also released other notes saying the vaccines did not stop you catching covid. Therefore they could legally not be called as vaccines.

    So … did the Government tell everybody or did they just stop saying vaccines worked and to get round the small legal technicality did they call them something else. Guess what they called them boosters.

    So … back to global warming. Did all those people getting rich or making a living off global warming tell us that the globe was not warming because their lawyers told them they would be sued when the temperature started to fall. Guess what they changed the name to climate change.

    You are being manipulated just like the temperature record.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Correct the one line note also said “extremely rare” with no quantification of what “extremely rare” meant. Plus there was never any benefit for many people in talking the jabs anyway. Giving the vaccines to people without a proper risk benefit analysis based on their age, gender and had they had covid already was criminal negligence in my view.

      The government and their experts kept saying they were “safe and effective” and even lied it would protect your granny. Giving it to young people, children, babies and people who had already had Covid was gross criminal negligence and perhaps even corporate manslaughter in my view.

      So how much of the MRNA funding comes from big Pharma exactly and this is not a conflict of interest? How is Van Tam getting on at his new Moderna job?

    2. glen cullen
      May 3, 2024

      Even the UN IPCC has many ‘maybe’s’ written into their text, they’d argue that its individual governments interpretation that produces and promotes net-zero …most of the IPCC reports don’t even purport to point the finger at ‘man-made’

    3. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Indeed so now they cannot get insurance for what could be huge legal costs and so have to drop their claims. Absurdly large legal cost in litigation are a total injustice in themselves that denies justice to many.

      A Muslim student took legal action against the Michaela School, saying policy was discriminatory and ‘uniquely’ affected her faith. Just this cost £150K in legal fees it seems (more than the cost of building a house). Needless to say taxpayers paid both sides costs. Then there is the risk of appeals if going against a company with deep pockets.

    4. Stred
      May 3, 2024

      I had the AZ jab in May 21 and was not given any warning or leaflet. As a result my lungs were damaged and I cannot even take proper exercise. As usual the law is an ass.

      1. glen cullen
        May 3, 2024

        I’ll never take another government sanctioned vaccine

    5. Iago
      May 3, 2024

      We live in a tyranny.

    6. Lynn Atkinson
      May 3, 2024

      But we are NOT being manipulated, that’s why Macron looks to have aged 20 years in 2 weeks. These globalists can see the end of the road.
      Cameron is deliberately putting the security of Britain at risk for no purpose. Supporting attacks on undisputed Russian soil using British Storm Shadows is madness and happily impossible because they were what was blown up in the warehouse in Odessa 3 nights ago. The fire burned for 36 hours. (Source the Ukrainian ‘government’).
      Why spend £3 billion to develop a defence against hypersonic weapons when Zelensky claims 98% success against them, I think he said throwing frying pans at them did the trick.
      Time for the western political class to be introduced to The Truth on all fronts.

      1. Norman
        May 3, 2024

        If you read the American book ‘One Nation Under Blackmail’, by Whitney Webb, some events in recent years seem to be a bit more explicable. What goes on at the highest levels is both murky and unpleasant.

      2. Mitchel
        May 4, 2024

        You might find the ‘Houthis’ expand the geographic range of their activities.

        I understand that Iran(and therefore possibly its proxies)now have supplies of Russian Lancet drones(the ones that have devastated Ukraine’s NATO armour).

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          May 4, 2024

          I understand that Iran is manufacturing a drone similar to the Lancet. It also claims to be able to test nuclear weapons ‘in a week’ if Israel ‘makes a mistake’.
          The agents provocateur in Gaza must be defeated or Israel will be pushed to utilise its h-bombs. If they face annihilation – why not?

  8. David Andrews
    May 3, 2024

    Judith Curry is a long standing critic of the CAGW thesis which underlies so-called “climate science”. Other scientists have pointed out that “climate science” does not actually follow the scientific method. Instead it seeks to shut down debate, not open itself up for debate by testing it’s hypothesis by actual observation or test. The late Professor Feynman famously said that the “laws of science” were just a “guess” that only lasted as long as they were not disproved by observation or experiment. I understand that the age of the universe is once again under debate based on the latest results beamed back from the James Webb telescope. It was not that long ago that there was a famous debate in Oxford involving Charles Darwin about whether our world was some 4000 years old or actually much, much older based on his observations. It is time for another debate about the current CAGW hypothesis.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      The idea that atmospheric CO2 is some kind of world thermostat and an extreme weather events climate control is totally absurd. How can they predict the future climate (average weather) for 100 years when they cannot even predict the climate for next year or the next week. How can they do it without knowing about future meteor impacts, sun spot activity, volcanic activity, human populations and activities, genetic changes in plants and crops, technology changes… for 100 years? Have they not heard of chaos theory. There models do not even predict the past weather or climates.

      Plus the CO2 reduction tech. that they push endlessly does not even reduce CO2 much. Follow the money.

    2. Mickey Taking
      May 3, 2024

      ‘Professor Feynman famously said that the “laws of science” were just a “guess” that only lasted as long as they were not disproved’
      The Government kept saying we ‘follow the science’. It depends on who claims ‘ the science’ as fact.

      1. Bloke
        May 3, 2024

        Science is a continuous line of corrected mistakes, but corrections do allow dud theories to be remedied when better evidence emerges.

      2. Margaret
        May 3, 2024


    3. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Feynman is right as usual – and in the case of climate predictions especially so – it is like predicting the lottery balls without even knowing fully their starting positions, the velocities of the balls or the ball machine rotations or accurate shapes of all the balls or how long they will be mixed up for before balls are releases!. Or if the machine will be hit by a meteor impact or volcano during the mixing!

    4. Norman
      May 3, 2024

      “And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus” (Daniel 1:19-21).
      Food for thought! The angelic proclamation reported through Daniel (Ch. 9) that prophesied Christ’s triumphal entry on ‘a colt, the foal of an ass’ (Palm Sunday) was fulfilled to the very day, also that he would be ‘cut off the following Passover , ‘but not for himself’ (some 2000 years ago now).
      Judging by results, our latter day ‘magicians and astrologers need ‘re-calibrating’ – Nebuchadnezzar style!

    5. Bloke
      May 3, 2024

      Scientists opine that Stonehenge was man-made. Nature routinely creates complex moving creatures like birds, dragonflies and tigers. Shifting a few stones into place would be a doddle for Nature, without needing the middleman. The notion of ancient hippie drag artists pulling that weight solely to make a heavy duty farm calendar seems a myth.

    6. John Waugh
      May 3, 2024

      “seeks to shut down debate”
      This is a core issue.Without open debate,what does science become? Is it pseudo-science?
      Professionals are scared to openly discuss their views in a culture of fear and abuse.
      Admirable are the people who stand up and take the blows to present their thoughts .

      1. glen cullen
        May 3, 2024

        Spot on

  9. michelle
    May 3, 2024

    The 3 points raised are in line with my thinking, points 1 & 2 in particular.
    What I also question is why we don’t seem to be seeing uniformity on the rush to net zero on a global scale.
    We only have to look to China and India to see that anomaly. I can’t believe for one moment that they would carry on regardless, if all the evidence pointed to man made climate catastrophe.

    I am naturally sceptical when there is a deliberate effort to close down any other point of view being allowed a mainstream airing. Even more so when such as a teenager (as was) with Asperger’s syndrome, and a diminutive pop star are used to frighten the children!!

    Lord Christopher Monckton is also interesting to listen to on this subject, and has an easy delivery style for those of us willing to listen to other possibilities.

  10. Roy Grainger
    May 3, 2024

    We have seen in the case of Covid (Prof Ferguson) and the BoE inflation predictions that model-based predictions of complex relationships have the capacity to be wildly inaccurate and do not provide a firm basis for policy setting. The only reason the climate modellers get away with it is because they are making predictions of small effects whose impact would only be clearly be seen far in the future and so they can’t be checked yet whereas we already know that Ferguson and the BoE were wrong.

    Furthermore the theory that man is responsible for climate change is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable – there’s not a measurement or observation you could make which would prove it untrue.

    One issue which interests me is that it appears science has no agreed explanation for what caused past ice ages (during which London was covered by half a mile thickness of ice). It follows then that whatever factor it was that caused them is not included in their climate models. That seems like a major flaw.

  11. Brian Tomkinson
    May 3, 2024

    Let me remind you:
    Life on earth as we know it is based on Carbon.
    Carbon Dioxide is essential to life on earth – without it there would be no life as we know it.
    The amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is 0.04% of which 3% is from man-made emissions.
    Therefore man-made CO2 represents 0.0012% of the earth’s atmosphere
    It is said that the UK’s contribution to that 0.0012% is 1% i.e. 0.000012% of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere emanates from the UK
    Do you really believe that eliminating all of the 0.000012% of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere will alter the climate or help control the earth’s temperature?
    Do you really believe that politicians, or anyone else for that matter, are in fact capable of controlling the earth’s temperature and climate?
    Do politicians and other climate zealots ever consider the costs to people resulting from taking action to achieve this holy grail of ‘carbon neutrality’?
    Who benefits from the imposition of such measures?
    It is just a scam to control and impoverish the majority of people for the benefit of a globalist cabal.

  12. Peter D Gardner
    May 3, 2024

    A fourth argument is that science has been politicised and thereby corrupted by a quasi-religious belief in CAGW.

  13. Old Albion
    May 3, 2024

    Like yourself Sir JR I’m not a climate scientist. I’m just a realist. It is impossible for a gas making up 0.04% of Earths atmosphere to have the magical powers attributed to it by the climate zealots.
    Have you noticed every time there is a weather event, be it warmth, cold, wind, rain, even snow, it’s immediately credited to ‘climate change’ Like we never had those events before !
    I remember Winter 62/63. Snow on the ground from Boxing day to March. It was an unusually cold Winter, but that is all it was.
    I remember Summer 1976. Weeks of glorious sunshine. It was an unusually warm Summer, that is all it was.
    I also remember Dennis Howell being made ‘minister for drought’ that year. He hardly sat down in his office and the rain came. At one point he was on TV and telling us “we need weeks of this” and that’s what we got relentlessly.
    It’s called weather and it can be variable.

  14. Peter D Gardner
    May 3, 2024

    A fourth argument is that science has been politicised and thereby corrupted by a quasi-religious belief in CAGW.
    Fifth, the periods of greatest human development are coincident with warm periods.
    It is a scientific fact from analysis of ice cores from Antarctica (EPICA B) that over the last 8 interglacial cycles atmospheric warming has preceded increasing CO2. Therefore, CO2 cannot be the cause of rising temperatures in this 100,000 year cycle. The earth is not yet out of the warming phase since the last ice age.

  15. David+L
    May 3, 2024

    I am neither a climate scientist nor a qualified medic, but the trend of recent years whereby anyone, however highly qualified, who dissents from the “official” narrative is censored, silenced or insulted (“Denier!!”) is very worrying. I found myself tending to self-isolate during Covid, not from fear of becoming infected but from otherwise having to hear so many people talking in unscientific and paranoid terms about a relatively bad flu. “Anyone without a piece of cloth over their face is killing grannies!” “Wipe your shopping with disinfectant or you may die!” “The infection can’t get you if you stay two metres away from others!”, “The vaccine is safe and effective!” and other superstitions. And so to climate change. Of course it changes, and maybe it is changing more rapidly although I read evidence that this is contested. Whatever, how anyone can portray NZ as anything other than yet another opportunity for well-placed companies and individuals to make a fortune is beyond me.

    1. Mickey Taking
      May 3, 2024

      and to find out how well control mechanisms work!

  16. Everhopeful
    May 3, 2024

    Funny old “science”.
    In the mid 1970s both Tickell and Schneider predicted planetary freezing and then some decade later both warned of global warming.
    And much £££s and treaties and binding agreements and clubs and meetings later we arrive here where we neither freeze nor boil nor are we under water.
    But yes…thanks to the blinking “science” our govt.s make our lives Hell.
    Still we must trust it….the “science”, you know!

  17. James Freeman
    May 3, 2024

    The widely accepted argument in favour of man-made global warming is as follows:
    a) The scientific theory is that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat radiation at specific frequencies. More CO2 traps more heat, causing Earth to warm up.
    b) Average global temperatures have been rising over the last 150 years, correlating with the rise in CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution.
    c) Although correlation does not mean causation, there is no other explanation for the rise in global temperature. Thus, the cause must be CO2.
    d) The rising temperatures have caused an increase in extreme weather events.

    However, these arguments are weak:
    a) CO2 is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere dominated by water vapour, with many of the heat-trapping frequencies overlapping. Thus, relatively small increases in CO2 are unlikely to cause significant warming.
    b) Temperatures have risen and fallen similarly during the current interglacial period (12,000 years) in Earth’s history, for example, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. No clear explanations exist for these other rises and falls, which do not depend on CO2. But whatever the causes, these could explain the current warming.
    c) Other scientific explanations for the recent rise in temperatures exist. One is the CO2 saturation theory, which correlates better with the data than current climate models.
    d) There is no statistical evidence that extreme weather events have increased in frequency, and the latest IPCC report confirms this.

  18. Dave Andrews
    May 3, 2024

    Labour has won the Blackpool South By Election with a lower turnout than they had in the 2019 general election. Much nonsense on the media about its significance, particularly about Reform narrowly coming third when their vote share was like the Conservatives really small. What they can’t tell you is how people will vote when they are motivated to turn out for a general election.

  19. glen cullen
    May 3, 2024

    As always, I applaud your balanced approach to examining both sides of the argument ….the first task is declaring that the climate change science ISN’T settled

    1. Mickey Taking
      May 3, 2024

      If ‘climate change’ was a science rather than an interesting historical observation, then the future weather changes could be forecast pretty accurately. But they aren’t and can’t be!

  20. Everhopeful
    May 3, 2024

    Alarm over the totally autonomous climate reminds me of something else we recently witnessed.
    If leaders were truly worried about emissions these are not the logical actions that would be taken.
    They would literally switch off the lights with immediate effect.
    Because the situation would be far, far worse than mere sensibilities about lack of transport, heat etc.
    Nobody would be making EVs at a manipulated rate of carbon emission.
    We would all be grateful to stagger, gasping ( through lack of O2) to our caves.
    Stepping over those who had truly collapsed on the ground.

  21. Everhopeful
    May 3, 2024

    Wars, housebuilding and population movement must surely alarm the climate alarmists?
    Let them assuage their painful alarm and STOP such activities with immediate effect.
    Oh…I forgot private jets…what vile torture those flights must be for them!

  22. Paula
    May 3, 2024

    Mass immigration. It’s killed your party.

  23. Javelin
    May 3, 2024

    Most Conservative voters sat on their hands or voted Reform. You need to be rid of Rishi and his WEF ideology or it’s going to destroy your party.

    1. Know-Dice
      May 3, 2024

      I think Rishi has also been sitting on his hands, certainly done or doing anything to prevent the demise of the Conservative party. He thinks by doing nothing people will come back, really totally deluded.

  24. glen cullen
    May 3, 2024

    ‘’I literally wrote a entire book warning you guys about this shit’’ – George Orwell

  25. glen cullen
    May 3, 2024

    I see that the ‘green party’ only got 2% of the vote in the Blackpool South by-election and lost their deposit …..is the fact that no one voted for the ‘greens’ significant ?

  26. Chris S
    May 3, 2024

    While I am now convinced that we are going through a long period of climate change – there is ample physical evidence of this – I am not convinced that man and industrialisation is the sole cause. Natural forces are also at play.

    I believe that all countries should transition to clean energy, overwhelmingly by using wind and solar, as it is the cheapest and quickest to build and bring into service, but it HAS to be 100% backed up by other power sources. Either gas or nuclear power generation will have to be the primary back up sources in Europe.

    Why are the climate zealots insisting that we remove oil and gas altogether ? Surely, if Nuclear proves too expensive in the long term, backup generation via gas will only be necessary for at most 25% of the time in Europe, so we will can still achieve a 75% reduction in emissions ? That would be enough to make a major difference but only if the rest of the world stops burning coal. By that, I mean the major polluters, China and India.

    We do not need to make a headlong rush to inconvenient and expensive EVs and heat pumps because we will not be in a position to afford or install enough clean electricity to power them for at least the next 20 years ! By then, new solutions will be developed which will be more acceptable to most of us.

  27. Keith Murray-Jenkins
    May 3, 2024

    Sir John, you’ve said most of what reasonable thinking and attitude should be. Why are we led in this country by nincompoops, God only knows and He’s keeping a straight face. Unnecessary suffrin’ seems to be the Order of the Day..for all this detrimentally effects other areas in our lives, as we know..(ie there’s less money around for applying to other things, we’re less secure in our self-dependence and so it goes on)…Dear oh dear…

  28. John Bolsover
    May 3, 2024

    When will the PC ostriches admit that the world is desperately short of CO2, so crucial for photosynthesis and production of Oxygen? Looked at over millennia this is factually correct, not just since James Watt was a boy or China went capitalist!
    Mote and Beam. Let us clean our filthy streets and polluted rivers, which we can see and smell, before choking the industrial growth which dragged the developing world from poverty to prosperity.

  29. Timaction
    May 3, 2024

    Sir John,
    It’s reassuring that you took the time to listen to an expert on so called Climate Change and it’s supposed models. Just a thought. Climate models are only as good as the data. I was told repeatedly during my study years and later in different fields. “Rubbish in = rubbish out”. I’m not aware listening to Government scientists that they consider the biggest influence on our climate in recent time scales……………..the Sun, Sun driven jet streams, our oceans, Milanovic cycles, tectonic plates/volcanoes, water vapour (Clouds).
    Dr Willie Moon has explained the cyclical and spontaneous nature of our Star’s intensity and activity. I listened as he explained the short term (decades) to the 10s of thousands of years and the millennia. All to big for most mortals to comprehend.
    And on and on with William Happer, Steve Koonin, John Clauser, John Cristie, Tony Heller, Roy Spencer, Dick Litzen etc. Unsponsored but won’t be gagged.
    How can it be that our politicos are prepared to waste £ billions of our money, confiscated on their alter of fiscal incompetence and stupidity, based on unproven science? The world isn’t flat and there is no such thing as witches, unicorns, or dragons. The world is older than 7000 years and plants and animals evolve. Until recent times people scoffed at Darwin!
    Time for change, time for Reform so we can escape the the Uni Party and is religion.

  30. Ian B
    May 3, 2024

    Sir John
    It is the same old criteria as always – ‘if something hasn’t been peer reviewed’ it is not science. So can never be considered fact or true.
    Modelling, without the facts is also not science, even with all the facts it is still not science until ‘peer reviewed’
    The weird society we live in keeps remodelling the meaning of words to suit their latest cult, religion. The media doesn’t help, they nowadays do not disseminate news but are tools to create headlines to promote sponsors.

  31. Everhopeful
    May 3, 2024

    Here, a Tory councillor was elected.
    “Stay with nurse for fear of worse?”
    We had no Reform candidate.
    So this was the best outcome since Independents tend to form unholy alliances and jump from Labour to independence ( taking Labour wokitudes with them).
    The successful Tory vows to save the green belt.
    And must be held to that.

  32. IanT
    May 3, 2024

    I’m sure that our climate is changing, after all it always has done so. It also seems to me that the whole ‘scientific consenus’ argument, is simply a way to stifle debate on the subject. There are certainly very senior climate scientists who question many aspects of what some regard as undeniable fact.

    However, I would like a pragmatic appraoch to the subject. If (as we are told) there is a “Climate Emergency”, then it is very clear that we are in the hands of other, much larger ’emmitters’- and that whatever we do here in UK will have very little impact on Global CO2 levels. What we can do is consider any potential threat from climate changes (from whatever cause) and look for ways to mitigate them. In the UK I’m fairly ceetain these are mostly water related – either too much or too little of it. Given that money is in very short supply, investment in water ‘management’ – whether that be flood protection or water storage would seem a much better investment than driving the rush to renewables before we have efficient & affordable energy storage to back it up.

    In summary, whatever your beliefs in terms of Climate Change, the current Net Zero solutions proposed by Government (both current and future) make very little sense in either reducing C02 levels or in keeping our economy competitive. Unfortunately, old religions have been replaced by new ones and anyone who dares question the Green Dogma is clearly a Heretic ( “We are on the highway to Hell” António Guterres)

  33. Bjorn
    May 3, 2024

    If the argument against lowering co2 is that a few (very few) people say it isn’t proven that human co2 generation will change the climate, and that it is going to be expensive to try to lower co2 output, may I suggest this analogy:
    It isn’t proven that the UK is in danger of being attacked by, say, Russia. Imagine how much money we could save if we dismantle all UK armed forces.
    For those missing the obvious, we have armed forces because we don’t know for certain that an enemy won’t attack. Hence we spend 2% of GDP to mitigate that risk. However, if we purely listened to the few that argue that the UK won’t be attacked, the logical choice would be to spend the money on other things.

    1. formula57
      May 3, 2024

      @ Bjorn – recall though that the armed forces have many duties, roles and applications (including aiding the civil power in maintenance of law and order) that do not require the existence or otherwise of a Russian threat; further that faced with an undefended U.K. Russia may revise its own intentions; that climate change happens and will continue to happen at scale for reasons unassociated with and uninfluenced by how much G.D.P. is expended. Otherwise, a nice analogy that may beguile a few if that was your aim.

      When it comes to climate change caused by human activity, should it not be asked on what scale that is, is that material, does it add to or mitigate the natural climate change that continually happens, if actions are taken now and in the foreseeable future to lessen change by modifying human activity will that have any material effect and do so in any worthwhile timescale, will some or all of those actions leave humanity and the planet better off than alternative actions that seek to cope with the change in climate (natural and human caused) by accommodating it? Why does the scientific community contain very credible scientists who challenge the consensus view and why are they not engaged with in a proper manner, placing at the forefront the spirit of unbiased inquiry that was once the foundation of scientific method, by their climate alarmist colleagues? Why do some climate alarmist scientists lie to us, as for example did a whole university located in Eastern England – other than to angle for funding perhaps?

    2. Everhopeful
      May 3, 2024

      A better analogy might be that we should all stop eating cheese so as not to offend the Man in the Moon.

    3. Hat man
      May 4, 2024

      Looking back at the Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya episodes, it seems to me that in fact we’ve been spending a lot of this ‘defence’ money on attacking other people, Bjorn. Now it’s Storm Shadows and sea-borne drones, allegedly launched by intermediaries because those being attacked are a nuclear power. it’s a dangerous game we play.

  34. The Prangwizard
    May 3, 2024

    Of course the policy in 1 is absurd.

    It is more than that, it is dangerous for my country, England, now and in the considerable future unless there us an immediate change. It continues with our destructon.

    It is more than a detached debating issue. Mr Redwood, you should not give the impression it is nothing to do with you. It is your party in government which you have now loyally supported for 14 years. So you are among the responsible.

    If you left the party it might listen and act more on your beliefs. You once said here that you didn’t want to leave the party because you didn’t want to be lonely. Seems like that could be an odd view the way voting is going.

    1. formula57
      May 3, 2024

      “..because you didn’t want to be lonely” – how could Sir John ever be lonely when he has us Commenters?

  35. Original Richard
    May 3, 2024

    CAGW with the Net Zero “solution” is a initially a Communist scam to impoverish and destroy the West by sabotaging its access to cheap, abundant, reliable energy as evidenced by these activists having no issue with China’s CO2 emissions and preferring intermittent renewables to reliable nuclear even though fixed offshore wind is now twice the price of nuclear.

    I would add to your list the clear intention to destroy our security through the Net Zero Strategy and electrification:

    How can it be safe to transition to intermittent and unreliable renewables and put all our energy eggs into one energy basket, electrification, when there is no plan or even an economic method to store grid-scale electricity ?

    How can it be safe for China, a state described by our security services as “hostile”, to supply all our energy infrastructure – wind turbines, solar panels, the metals and minerals for motors, generators, batteries and cabling?

    How can it be safe for our energy infrastructure to be spread out over half the North Sea? How will our depleted armed services protect all the wind turbines and undersea cables from air and submarine drones? Or all the vast expanses of solar panels? No undersea cable or pipe is safe today, as seen with Nord Stream 2, and yet there is even a plan to import intermittent renewable electricity from North Africa over a distance of 2400 miles or even across the Atlantic.

    How can it be safe to electrify our armed services – aircraft, ships, tanks ? How will they be re-charged on the battlefield or at sea? Or in the air?

  36. Howard Thomson
    May 3, 2024

    It is about time that the ‘consensus’ on climate change is challenged. Reading Jeremy Nieboer’s [see Amazon …] books on the climate and CO2 has persuaded me that the ‘panic’ over CO2 emissions is just that. The climate is changing, but Peter L Ward’s website https://ozonedepletiontheory.info] offers a much more believable explanation of what is happening.
    We do need to wean ourselves off dependence on fossil fuels, and we need to make affordable energy available to countries [all of Africa!] where the motivation to leave is substantially economic. We should also not be funding via oil purchases countries like Russia, Iran, and others that challenge the political stability of the world.
    At least Boris was enthusiastic about the future hydrogen economy, which JCB [see Youtube] and Cummins Diesel are pursuing, noting that aluminium was more expensive than silver (!) in the late 1800s and is now a common, and cheap metal. We are lacking in imagination and confidence about the future …

    1. Original Richard
      May 4, 2024

      HT :

      Jeremy Nieboer has an excellent Tom Nelson Podcast : “The Greatest Deception” :

      He explains how there is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the available IR radiation available to it and hence why increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmeophere makes negligible difference to its GHG effect, a phenomenon known as saturation.

  37. Stred
    May 3, 2024

    Following the Mann hockey stick adjustment of past temperature records and the use of tree ring estimates and urban heat island measurements, the academic careers of critics like Judith Curry were destroyed. Now these critical scientists are setting the record straight with increasing success. Of course the vested interests will continue to make money from the ill fated renewables and academic grants. But the general public is slowly realising the truth. When the blackouts start, during a mid winter wind lull and following the closure of the last coal station and all but one nuclear reactor, there will be he’ll to pay.
    They know this, which is why they are pushing smart meters so hard.

    1. glen cullen
      May 3, 2024

      Mark my words, the next parliament (tory or labour) will make smart-meters compulsory

      1. Mark
        May 4, 2024

        This Parliament has already passed the enabling legislation in the recent Energy Act. There is now a “consultation” on such things as making it compulsory for heat pumps to be controlled remotely by the grid. If we believe the government propaganda, it will mean that people turn to their electric fires consuming three times as much electricity when their heat pump cuts out. Presumably sales of those will have to be banned so people can freeze to death instead.

  38. Bert+Young
    May 3, 2024

    As the rain pours down today I was hoping for some good election results news ; sadly my reaction was very much like the weather .

  39. Bryan Harris
    May 3, 2024

    Wouldn’t it be nice if all MPs sought contrary views to the official ones.

    As mentioned, there are many variables that affect our weather, the Sun is the biggest influencer, but cosmic winds from long dead stars also provide effect.
    The models that are used to ‘prove’ Man made climate change are manipulated to provide the required answers, but even without manipulation they would be unable to cope with the massive number of inputs, which change by the moment.

    The infamous Hockey stick graph which persuaded many that we were warming has been shown to be totally inaccurate, in fact it demonstrates the reverse when honestly portrayed. That is, there is nothing exceptional about our temperatures.

    And what about that claim of 97% of scientists agreeing with this alleged climate emergency. That survey was as false as can be. They of course only asked those scientists working for the UN or otherwise engaged with projects funded by the climate change movement. If a true count was held today, around the world, the majority of scientists would be against.

    Because we can no longer trust our own government, it is easy to believe that the alleged climate emergency is simply more deceit. It seems like an effort to punish us for living and expecting the future to get better. Unfortunately for HMG the evidence against their position keeps mounting, but still the deception continues.

  40. MAXIE
    May 3, 2024

    Your 3 Points, plus the Scientific knowledge of those such as Prof Curry and of course the failure of the media to mention that they’re opposing opinions to that of Justin Rowlatt, the modern day Magnus Pike. This excessive financial charade of a climate change crusade is a complete stitch up and once again the Taxpayer has no say in the matter.

  41. Ukretired123
    May 3, 2024

    Today there are many well intentioned good folk plus many snake oil salesmen making a living on the band wagon of climate change as it’s trendy and cannot be scrutinised without deep pockets. In fact group think on climate change is so far advanced anyone questioning is treated as abnormal!
    Much the same way as recent wild theories about self ID (as Idiotic, “I am a Walrus” etc).
    Too many people have been poorly educated today and pontificate instant wisdom on “their Truth” without real experience of track record as the modern technology and media empowers an individual or pseudo individuals armed with Artificial Intelligence asymmetric ability to disrupt rational thought and debate. This also is exploited by hostile actors pushing states to be confused and weakened without going to war long term.

    1. Mark
      May 4, 2024

      This year if you have been sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun you will have been getting a tan from sitting in the English rain…


      Something other than semolina pilchards have been climbing up the Eiffel Tower.

      But perhaps the Walrus and the Carpenter has the real lesson of Net Zero. We are the oysters, not the walrus.

  42. Atlas
    May 3, 2024

    Sir John,

    Those three points you raise are important. I would just add that eventually we will exhaust our fossil fuel supplies – but this might take quite some time. So in the long run we are going to need an alternative source of energy – but this might be something completely different from what is being promoted these days.

    As for the Scientific basis of Climate alarmism. Hmm, well just follow the money as to who gets University grants etc. I cannot see Professors of Climate Science easily admitting now that it is not happening as this would remove the rationale for their Departments.

    Others here have correctly pointed out that “Science is never settled”.

  43. Lynn Atkinson
    May 3, 2024

    I wish the King had your attitude and spoke only on subject in which his qualified.

    1. Mickey Taking
      May 3, 2024

      Silence prevails?

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        May 3, 2024


    2. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      What would he be allowed to talk about then quack medicine, talking to plants and being deluded a bit dim & rather spoilt? He has six O levels & two duff A levels (French and History) & this from a very good school but magically managed to get into Trinity Camb. to read Arch. and Anth. & later changed to history. I doubt if my 5 top A levels would even have got me into Trinity College for maths!

      Brighter than John Major though I suppose.

  44. Keith from Leeds
    May 3, 2024

    Hooray, I am glad you are prepared to listen to the arguments against Global Warming/ Climate Change. I am not a scientist, but I have chosen to educate myself, and Professor Curry is absolutely right. Surely your job now is to educate other MPs, and persuade the PM to educate himself. The damage the complete nonsense of GW/CC is doing to the UK is frightening.
    An even more difficult job is to educate the public who have been brainwashed by the media, especially the BBC,
    who have been promoting a totally false narrative? That is your challenge!

    1. paul cuthbertson
      May 3, 2024

      K FL -Surely your job now is to……………….
      “that aint gonna happen”

  45. Derek
    May 3, 2024

    Given the existing evidence that clearly shows, that mankind is neither the cause of climate change nor global warming, and more importantly, the lack of verifiable evidence that proves it is, why are both the government and the opposition Parties pursuing an expensive policy which presupposes that we can actually “tackle climate change”? It’s ridiculous.
    Furthermore, probably having believed the Gore fear factor hype, why do they force us to do more and spend more on cutting OUR emissions when they are already lower than the top 16 emitters of the world?
    Of very specific note is, the UK is the only country in the top 18 to have actually reduced its out put of CO2 over the recorded period 1990-2022.
    Why are we doing more when the others do very little? What do these AGW promoters not understand about the “maths” of our taxpayers’ problem?
    Politicos, wake up and drop the profligate, yet vogue, woke philosophy and save OUR country. Now!

  46. Kenneth
    May 3, 2024

    In my humble opinion, there are many flaws in the approach to the environment.

    For example:

    1. The science appears to be based on modelling, not facts

    2. The solutions offered by governments and various international bodies are always those favoured by the far left. This makes the whole thing appear to be a racket

    3. The government and civil service appear to be swayed by the media in which the BBC has, until recently, dominated. The BBC will often link natural disasters to global warming even where there is no proven link. Natural disasters have occurred throughout history and I have seen no evidence that they are more numerous, or worse in modern times.

    The media has turned this issue into a fashion, resulting in bad decisions. For example, recycling was the buzz word I the 1980’s and 1990’s but most schemes have proved to be useless and appear to have increased emissions. More emphasis on re-use would have been better.

    4. Great emphasis is placed on grand, expensive schemes to counter pollution instead of the obvious solution of practising conservation and efficiency – with resulting lower costs. Consumers would be happy to see lower pollution coupled with lower costs. Making life more expensive will never work and will make everything worse.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Pollution is one thing but CO2 is not “pollution” it is vital for life plant tree and crop food.

      1. Derek
        May 4, 2024

        Indeed, it is, as proven by Dutch tulip producers, who actually pump in tons of CO2 to enhance their growth.

    2. Mark
      May 4, 2024

      Recently I took a look at one of the attribution studies blaming climate change for weather events. I found it relied on modelling the past decade with a selection of climate models tuned to the RCP 8.5 scenario. That starts by assuming rapid increases in anthropogenic emissions, and uses the very top end of the range of climate sensitivities considered by the IPCC despite the fact that those are now vanishingly unlikely given the trend in estimates of the sensitivity by many different scientists. It then relies on estimating the amount of natural climate variation by reference to the very short history of the satellite era until the models take over and assuming that captures the probability of extreme events. Naturally, it leads to low estimates of the probability of extreme events. Combine these assumptions, and almost any unusual event can be falsely attributed to CO2. It’s fakery, not science.

  47. Ed
    May 3, 2024

    We live on a dynamic earth. Nothing ever stays the same.
    The earth/ocean/atmosphere system is chaotic, non linear and has an unknown number of variables.
    The idea that a miniscule change in a trace gas that is essential to life on earth (which we could do with more of) is responsible for ‘climate change’ is laughable.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024


  48. Christopher Bowring
    May 3, 2024

    The regular IPCC reports are written by climate scientists and are generally considered credible. In addition, though, there are documents called ‘summary for policymakers’ (SFP) which are debated between different governments. It is not unreasonable to suggest that they may be less reliable than the main IPCC reports. It is often claimed that to do so requires an understanding of the main IPCC report which is impossible for lay readers. This is not so. The IPCC reports draw conclusions which are understandable for all even if the technical details are beyond them. What is needed is to request a link between conclusions in the SFP report and the conclusions of the IPCC report. For instance, where is there a reference to the 2C temperature increase from pre-industrial times in the IPCC report? Where does the IPCC report talk of a ‘climate emergency’ or similar? A failure to establish such links points to political meddling of the science in the SFP and may help some politicians to suggest that a slowing down of Net Zero, even if not its complete abolition, might be a good idea.

  49. Barry De Boer
    May 3, 2024

    In my opinion Javelin’s comment hit the nail on the head, particularly his/her comment on ice ages.
    We are currently in an interglacial period in our current ice age, aka, Quaternary Glaciation, and each of our ice ages consist of alternating glaciation (gets colder) and interglacial (gets hotter) ergo the earth is currently getting warmer without the help of man made influences.
    I see that the current ice age is believed to have started some 80 million years ago so it’s got some way to go yet.
    I don’t profess to know what additional impact man made endeavours may have but the underlying trend seems to be in line with what happened in our previous ice ages.
    So, global warming – Yes – it happens every 150 million years.
    Man’s industrial additional impact – I don’t know, and neither do the climate change ‘experts.’

  50. Barbara
    May 3, 2024

    After what Judy Curry has had to suffer, I am glad they invited her to speak. She was forced out of her university position, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in 2017 because of the sheer nastiness of the global warming fanatics – even though she was a distinguished scientist with many years’ experience as well as a consultant to NASA and NOAA.

    As to the wider point, my personal opinion is that if governments all over the West are suggesting an evil path, it is not good enough for MPs just to say ‘We can’t afford it’. The evil proposition should be dismantled from its erroneous foundations upward. Otherwise, there will always be a chance it will be said to be affordable – then your objection to it vanishes; when the real point is we shouldn’t be doing it anyway, because it brings no benefit (indeed, brings great harm to millions).

  51. Guy+Liardet
    May 3, 2024

    That was Archbishop Ussher versus geology

  52. MikeP
    May 3, 2024

    Sir John, the other egregious example of political dishonesty or economy with the truth is the fabled “Green jobs revolution”. These aren’t additional jobs, if they exist at all they’ll replace jobs from older energy sources or industries that we’re replacing.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 3, 2024

      Far more jobs destroyed than created and the new jobs mainly overseas!

    2. glen cullen
      May 3, 2024

      The only green jobs are in China & India, building coal fired power stations, while tesla lays oof staff and disbands its whole ‘super-charger’ department

  53. Margaret
    May 3, 2024

    All my plants grow more quickly next to my house, because it is one degree warmer than at the bottom of the garden.That is just one small house warming land and possibly air.

  54. hefner
    May 3, 2024

    I just hope that people here will read Prof. Curry’s full book ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk’ published last year. It is essentially made of two parts, the first one discussing the observations, modelling, uncertainties, the second part about what would be a rational approach to these uncertainties and related risk (essentially to the economy). Prof. Curry’s GWPF lecture, not even half an hour long, only skimmed over the ‘risk’ bit, making it just an extended advert for her book with in fact very little real ‘science’ content. But I guess it must have been what the GWPF wanted from her.

    People might also want to read her Climate Etc website at judithcurry.com . They might be surprised by what she writes.

    1. Mark
      May 4, 2024

      For those interested in exploring just how weak or strong climate science projections are, I would recommend oceanographer Alan Longhurst’s book Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science. He delves into the papers and methods that constitute the actual supporting science following a lifetime of involvement at the heart of climate research.

  55. Mark
    May 4, 2024

    Robin Guenier put together a very well argued piece that was published in the Daily Sceptic recently as an aid to those who wish to argue against Net Zero without any need to attempt to refute religious belief in climate change. He supports two main points: Net Zero is infeasible; and even if we achieved it the effect would be negligible on the climate despite the enormous cost to the economy. Some useful additions to your positions.


  56. Ralph Corderoy
    May 4, 2024

    Any calling with science in its name is not a science. This has long been known, e.g. computer programmer Fred Brooks was saying it in ’77. Computer science, cosmetic science, Christian science… Climate science is just one in a long line.

    Also modelling is not science, ‘settled’ or not. Science is layers of refutation. Any model of complexity is subjective, a creation of the modeller. He prods and tweaks, testing changes, discarding ones he thinks gives improbable or unwelcome results until satisfied. Then a paper can be written, more funding obtained, and a career progressed. Modelling too easily turns into the crafting of ‘evidence’ because the modeller’s competitive peers have already given in to the temptation of the incentives.

    Expert failure is well known. Experts are useful for explaining and answering using their in-depth knowledge. They are worse than average at predicting even when they know this is an expert’s flaw. Schoolboy maths does better at extrapolating. Expert failure plays into a modeller’s subjective choice of predictions.

    Climate modellers deliberately continued to use RCP 8.5 which assumed a 500% increase in coal and no effort to cut CO₂ emissions because otherwise their results were hard to distinguish from ‘noise’. RCP 8.5 was defined as 3% probable but gained the ‘business as usual’ moniker. RCP 8.5 ‘has been used in more than 2,000 research papers’ — Climate change: Worst emissions scenario ‘exceedingly unlikely’, BBC, 2020, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51281986

  57. Dr Michael Cross
    May 4, 2024

    The scientific sections of the IPCC report are supposed to be written by specialists in each area of expertise, each area being compiled by a very expert section head.
    1. On occasion contributions have been incorporated that were written by authors with little knowledge but with a global warming agenda to pursue. A number of expert section heads have been so appalled by these contributions that they have resigned rather than be associated with them.
    3. A summary of a few pages is then compiled and added to the front of the IPCC report. This summary is what is read by everybody. Most people ignore the scientific evidence that makes up the bulk of the IPCC report.
    4. Since all science has to be interpreted within a world view (the ‘science’ itself says NOTHING), it is always interpreted within the context of supposed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and no other interpretation is allowed. Hence the summary often contradicts, distorts, or perverts the information contained in the main report in order to support an agenda that supports the political bandwagon of AGW.
    6. Furthermore, the predictions the report claims to make are obtained from the interpretations gained from mathematical modelling of the climate. Anyone who has done mathematical modelling knows it is a case of ‘garbage in – garbage out’. Climate is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to model. However, it is still worth trying because the benefits would be so great – should they ever be successful. [Those in the Office of Budget Responsibility know all about the difficulties of modelling]. Even three-day forecasts are often wrong.
    7. The last nail in the coffin for me is the lengths that proponents of AGW go to to assert the truth of their belief [it is a religion like all the other bandwagons]. They vilify anyone who disagrees, they sack eminent scientists who disagree, they shout, insult and cancel all the time because they know that they have NO CASE AT ALL.

  58. Guy+Liardet
    May 4, 2024

    Oh dear. Our windmills are producing 2.4 gigawatts again. That’s about a trillion pounds per gigawatt. Demand is low today at about 31. Why don’t those who govern us WAKE IP? Oh of course they make a lot of money out of it.

  59. Reform_Now
    May 6, 2024

    Not sure why the short piece below was rejected previously. It’s short and contains two articles readers may wish to read…

    This article has many useful links to the various pieces of analysis of the “climate change consensus” claim:

    We can see that the claim is made based on various sleight of hand manoeuvres such as mis-categorising scientific papers, and only counting those which the study’s authors deem to be “climate change experts”.

    An important article by ex-professor Patrick T Brown is here:

    This shows how he, while a professor in academia, needed to skew his research towards climate change as an emergency requiring economic solutions in order to get them published. It also notes, as an uncontested fact, that funding is scarce in science and scientists compete to get it. A lot of funding is from pro-change bodies, who would be singularly unimpressed if their cash were spent to prove them wrong.
    He has now left academia to a think tank so that he can do his work without such considerations.

  60. Ralph Corderoy
    May 7, 2024

    Judith Curry has made the slides and a transcript available on her web site: https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/04/annual-gwpf-lecture-climate-uncertainty-and-risk/

  61. G
    May 10, 2024

    Sounds an interesting lecture!

    The case for man made climate change due to CO2 is plausible. At least that was the view of the late Professor Freeman Dyson (a senior of Professor William Happer). The question is only one of degree.

    The technology for acquiring the ice core data really only emerged in the 60s, becoming very clear by the 90s.

    Imagine the consternation of discovering the cyclicity of ice ages and ocean levels when much of our entire civilisation and infrastructure has been built around rivers and coasts!!

    Surprise surprise, there dawned the realisation that average global temperatures could increase by as much as 4 degrees! All by natural causes!

    Easy to interpret then the urgency of the mantra “we must take steps to mitigate the worst effects of global warming” etc. Yes, but global warming by natural causes?…

Comments are closed.