Reposted from

By: Chris Morrison

November 13th 2019

It’s been a busy few days for the BBC’s Matt McGrath drawing attention to Professor Mickey Mouse’s view that the “climate emergency” is real while finding time out of his hectic writing schedule to pocket a 100,000 euro “award” from a climate activist outfit.

The group called the BBVA Foundation gave the money to McGrath for his “extraordinary capacity” to communicate complex environmental issues and science. McGrath added that he defended the primacy of specialist journalism “that draws on sound scientific sources” in an era of fake news.

Presumably that’s his view of the lefty eco drivel press release he subbed last week claiming that over 11,000 scientists were predicting “untold suffering” from the forthcoming climate emergency. Not that the piece lasted long on the BBC’s anti science web page, once it became common knowledge that the Mouse had signed along with Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore and Professor Araminta Aardvark from the University of Neasden (Private Eye: passim).

The statement published in the journal BioScience was also notable for the lack of actual scientists that signed. Any cursory look at the signatories with librarians, teachers and government inspectors gives more the impression of a petition from activists with a strong personal and often economic interest in promoting the so-called New Green Deal.

Of course McGrath and his fellow BBC activists like Roger Harrabin fit well with this crowd.  In July McGrath wrote his usual measured piece for the BBC entitled “Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months”. Headlines like this no doubt delighted the BBVA Foundation judging panel which included two government press officers and a number of “climate” journalists.

Of course some may question the wisdom of people who think of themselves as independent journalists receiving huge sums of money from the people they are supposed to be writing about. But that pass was sold years ago in some sections of the media. “Specialist” journalists routinely receive awards as in banking/insurance/ holiday homes Journalist of the Year. The giver gets to bung them a nice drink while the receiver swanks about as “award winning”, often removing any trace of the sponsor’s name in the self promotion.

Nevertheless the scale of McGrath’s libation is truly impressive. One might even call it an extreme event, necessitating the provision of numerous places of refreshment and large standby facilities to rush replenishments from brewer and distillery alike.

And so the remorseless climate emergency nonsense rolls on bankrolled and promoted by a huge subsidy-hungry Green army looking to profit from unimaginable societal and economic change. Any attempt to discuss the science is howled down. The BBC and the Guardian are at the forefront of mainstream media in the UK in promoting the ludicrous “carbon free” narrative. Almost every press release promising Armageddon is given prominent billing however preposterous the source.

Earlier this year, for instance, Roger Harrabin reprinted a number of false extreme weather claims from the left wing Institute for Public Policy, citing a report co-written by a researcher whose only previous job experience was working as a volunteer for an Edinburgh “equality” charity!

But at least the writer in question was a real person, unlike Hogwarts and Neasden’s finest!

The lack of rigorous scientific reporting has been partly responsible for the growth of increasingly unhinged climate hysteria. Extinction Rebellion started life as an anti-capitalist fringe group but got lucky by promising billions will die unless we remove the only efficient fuel we have within seven years. If you are all-in on climate and species catastrophe, you are hardly in a position to question the loonies propaganda and methods.

The Greta Thunberg episode is even more bizarre since the kid knows nothing about the science of climate change other than what adults have told her. The historian David Starkey noted his week that the Middle Ages were full of child saints and intelligent people like Michael Gove prostrating themselves … “and it is frankly mad”.

Little or no mention is given to any climate narrative that might hint at a more nuanced or objective discussion. For instance, the news that the Thames flood barrier had only been raised nine times in the past five years – a record low for that period of time going back to the 1980s – was ignored presumably on the grounds that it cast doubt on the glad tidings that the Greenland ice sheet is about to come crashing through Londoners’ front room any time soon.

The sacking of Dr Susan Crockford and Professor Peter Ridd for querying polar bear extinction and Great Barrier Reef destruction by their respective universities in Canada and Australia is barely mentioned. Hundreds of scientists telling the recent UN climate conference that climate models are not “remotely plausible as policy tools” were ignored, presumably because the sacred models provide the all important forecasts for the upcoming climate fireball.

This whole Armageddon fantasy is little more than an insult to the intelligence. It uses unreliable computer models of a chaotic atmosphere to predict risible claims of runaway global warming while closing down any reasoned scientific debate. It uses children to promote its anti-human, reactionary message. It is a deranged middle class fixation using dodgy unproven science to clamp down on continued human progress and ingenuity and condemn millions to a lifetime of poverty, disease and early death.

Please send 100,000 euros to:

Your correspondent, Chris Morrison (Chris Morrison Journalist of the Year)

Please follow Chris on Twitter @CMorrisonEsq

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff Sherrington
November 16, 2019 2:18 pm

When writing for public consmption, can I suggest that all authors select a constant message or theme to include as a routine repetition? For example, I have been troubled since 1992 by the absence on an agreed ‘sensitivity’ number that links air temperature changes to GHG concentrations. This important, fundamental failure cannot be hidden. Geoff S.

Curious George
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 16, 2019 3:56 pm

There is no time left to worry. “Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months” [Matt McGrath]. Make that 8 months, say I. Matt, time to start praying.

Reply to  Curious George
November 16, 2019 7:30 pm

I thought we were out of time 10 years ago?

Gerry, England
Reply to  MarkW
November 17, 2019 3:39 am

No, that is so last year.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Curious George
November 17, 2019 12:56 am

8 minutes?

November 16, 2019 2:18 pm

“We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion.”

Michael Crichton

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Stephen Heins
November 16, 2019 3:13 pm

MC, a voice we sorely miss.

Ron Long
November 16, 2019 2:23 pm

As a anthropogenic climate change skeptic (keep that denier crap to yourself, please) and very experienced geologist who has walked many miles through the preserved sedimentary record of past climate cycles, I can assure both sides that I follow the climate rigorously, to wit: when it’s cold no ice in the wine, when it’s hot put a couple of cubes in.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Ron Long
November 16, 2019 3:34 pm

Any advice about the colour? 😉

Lorne Newell
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 16, 2019 6:54 pm

red cold. White cold. Any other colour cold.

Ron Long
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 17, 2019 6:27 am

Ed, I strongly recommend the clear ice, the yellow stuff doesn’t seem right.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 26, 2019 2:10 am
Stephen Richards
Reply to  Ron Long
November 17, 2019 1:39 am

As a french habitant I find that disgusting. you ‘ave pout de l’eau een mon vine ? yoo noughty man.

Eyal Porat
Reply to  Ron Long
November 17, 2019 8:50 pm

Oce in wine???

November 16, 2019 2:25 pm

Just when I thought the world had ended you remind me that we are still here putting up with yet more bull from Clamistas. Oh the pain of it all!

November 16, 2019 2:43 pm

Obsessive compulsive disorder can be manifested in many ways. Addiction to junk climate science and panic-attack news about it is one of them. It’s almost as if they want it to be true so that they can claim “victory”, even when it clearly isn’t true.

Please, someone, please, please, please, round them up and put them on their own island with no contact with the rest of the world I have things to do that do NOT include listening to loonies who are addicted to panic attacks.

Reply to  Sara
November 16, 2019 2:55 pm

+1…thank you for saying that better than I could have….and for using a lot less profanity

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sara
November 16, 2019 4:45 pm

There are plenty of people on the skeptic side who have pined for cooling, with all the misery that would entail for developing countries.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 16, 2019 6:54 pm

Oh Griff, I mean “Jeff”, while it is true that some have said it would be fun to see some cooling in order to shut up all you brain dead warmistas no one of the deplorable deniers is actually hoping for another ice age. They just want you to STFU.

James francisco
Reply to  Cube
November 17, 2019 6:02 am

Now who could argue with that!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 17, 2019 7:09 am

Doesn’t matter what anyone wants—climate cultists praying for deadly heat waves or skeptics noting disturbing cooling trends—we get what we get. It’s hubris to declare humans in charge of climate and very, very unscientific. Humans can’t even forecast weather or make a car that reliably drives itself. They certainly have zero control over hot, cold and 30 year weather averages.

November 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Treble emergency: what you declare when under attack by climate eunuchs basslessly crying wolf.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 16, 2019 3:49 pm

The judges give it a nine…

Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 16, 2019 7:32 pm

When you run out of bass, try catfish.

November 16, 2019 3:13 pm

Journalism’s explanation of the hype is that it is their job to ensure that what they say has the same impact that the truth should have but doesn’t always have on the hoy poloy – the joe sixpack – us non journalism bozos.

Dale Mullen
November 16, 2019 3:16 pm

Those living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
The list of 500 “claimed” scientists stating that there is no climate emergency is nearly as ridiculous/irrelevant as the earlier crazed list of 11 ~ 15 k scientists who supposedly stated that there is a climate emergency.
Climate scientists: Publicist? Civil Engineer? Prof. of Economics? Prof. of Energy Politics? PhD in Law? Science Journalist? Author? and many more foolish non-scientific titles.
Holy Chyet! Don’t let this list get out or skeptics will be doomed forever!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dale Mullen
November 16, 2019 4:51 pm

I find all such lists pretty meaningless.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 17, 2019 6:54 am

I agree.
The unfortunate part is that the skeptics had in September released a list, every bit as suspect, as the November list of CAGW scientists, we were mocking.
As pointed out by another poster, science is not done by consensus and therefore any list, as you’ve suggested, is relatively useless.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 17, 2019 3:56 pm

“I find all such lists pretty meaningless.”

Yep, they are, except for one benefit: they expose the dishonesty of Oreskes’ consensualist epigones and their claims that nobody disagrees. Or that debate is everywhere. Or that nobody bothers agreeing because it’s all so obvious. Or that there is no debate. Or whatever their lie du jour is.

Reply to  Dale Mullen
November 16, 2019 7:34 pm

Actually it’s 30K and that was after the list was scrubbed.

Dale Mullen
Reply to  MarkW
November 17, 2019 6:50 am

The major problem is that the news media world-wide blasted the claim of a list of 15 000 scientists (Nov. 19, 2019) claiming there was a climate emergency. As you likely already know, even when the list was shown to be a complete sham, no (or very few) retractions were published admitting that the list was fraudulent.
Then to add insult to injury, we find that the “skeptics” had release a list (500 scientists writing to the UN that there is no climate emergency – Sept. 23, 2019) which was every bit as suspect as the world-wide scientists list, we were mocking.
Thus my “stone throwing” comment…

Rod Evans
Reply to  Dale Mullen
November 17, 2019 5:42 am

Science, is not determined by consensus or crowd volume.
History is awash with examples of people who disagreed with the mass consensus and many paid for their honesty with imprisonment or worse. Galileo even provided a new device for the consensus/establishment to look at the heavens with, but they still jailed him. We do not want any of that truth conflicting with religious dogma do we. I blame the Dutch far seeing perspective, for Galileo’s troubles……

Dale Mullen
Reply to  Rod Evans
November 17, 2019 6:40 am

Rod. I agree fully.
When making my comment, I had just finished reading through list of 500 scientists who just recently had written to the UN claiming there was no climate emergency and inadvertently I may not have been clear in my reference (comment). I noticed this only after posting.
If you compare the two lists (12-15 000 scientists claiming there is a climate emergency vs. 500 scientists claiming there is no climate emergency), you will find both lists share the same unsupported/unrelated credential claims.
Thus my comment of “not throwing stones…”
If we want to be listened to and taken seriously, CAGW skeptics must be careful not to make the same mistakes we are attributing to the alarmist groups.
My apologies for not being more clear.

Reply to  Dale Mullen
November 17, 2019 6:43 am

Please don’t knock Civil Engineers. I admit I am not a Climate Scientist but strongly believe in the power of Nature in causing most of the changes taking place. I was a Chief Design Engineer, with a PhD, responsible for analysis work, and over 40 years involved in Nuclear, Bridge and Off Shore structural design and analysis. I feel I can apply my analytical skills in judging the vast amount of data available of many engineering, and also mathematical, topics in a calm professional manner. Civil Engineering is a very broad based profession in which we cover, not only at college but also in work, many other disciplines, such as hydraulics, mechanical, electrical and geology to name a few. Also having spent a few of my early years working on Blue Streak rocket I have kept up my interest in astronautics, being a FBIS for over 60 years and can readily relate to the use of satellite in climate change. Now happily retired.
Here endth my CV!!!

Reply to  alankwelch
November 17, 2019 10:04 am

Oh, I’m not knocking engineers or any of the professionals listed, for that matter.
What I am trying to point out is that many of those listed as climate scientists or even just scientists, are not scientists at all.
Just like the “claim” of being a professor (professor of what? English? Sociology? Etc.) tells us nothing about the credentials of the person making the claim or how astute they might be in climate science. The claim of being a doctor or a PhD…Doctor of what?
My original complaint concerned the earlier release of a list of 500 “claimed” climate scientists who wrote a letter to the UN and then pointing out the faults with the list of 12 000 – 15 000 who were supposedly claiming a climate emergency…
Both lists were equally suspect although both lists may have included some legitimate scientists involved in the study of climate change.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  alankwelch
November 17, 2019 7:17 pm

“being a FBIS for over 60 years and can readily relate to the use of satellite in climate change.”

The British Interplanetary Society. I was in awe of the British Interplanetary Society when I was a kid.

When I was about 11 years old, I started spending a lot of time at my local library, and I discovered the science fiction genre and fell in love with it, and read every science fiction book the library had, and the librarians kept feeding me new science fiction books whenever they would order new books (they knew I was enarmored of the books).

And then I decided it was time to understand more about actual rocket science and interplanetary/interstellar travel. I wanted to know how to do it for real. And the connection with the British Interplanetary Society is that most of those science fact books about space I was reading were written by members of the British Interplanetary Society, so they ranked very high on my list of important, intelligent people.

Some years later I actually became a member of the British Interplanetary Society and read their publications with fascination.

November 16, 2019 3:46 pm

I am still hoping for the lights to go out, and all of the indications are that
it will happen. First in the State of Victoria, followed by South Australia
who depend on the connector to Victoria.

Then and only then will the message get through to the average person that
they have over the years been fed lies about the renewables being the answer.


November 16, 2019 3:52 pm

I cannot keep from wondering: How much the “Big Green Machine” has given to aid government research in lowering emissions? Oh, that’s right,they spend their billions on preventing any private sector from investing their own money on research and infrastructure upgrades.

Economic development isn’t the BGM’s problem or in their “best interests.”

michael hart
November 16, 2019 4:54 pm

Matt McGrath and Roger Harrabin are both examples of BBC “science journalists” who are no such thing. They have no real interest in, or knowledge of, science. They are political enviro-activists, dipping from the BBC’s public coffers and from any other environmental-activism source that they can attract the attention of as a result of employment by the BBC. Richard Black was just the same.

In many ways I don’t even regard as their fault. Lampreys and leaches will suck off any host large enough to supply sustenance, but they are all a disgraceful sign of how low the BBC has fallen.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  michael hart
November 16, 2019 5:33 pm

You said, “… they are all a disgraceful sign of how low the BBC has fallen.” You’re just saying that because it is true!

November 16, 2019 5:47 pm

See my diagnosis:
Here are the 1st and last 2 paragraphs
The CO2 Derangement Syndrome – the Millennial Turning Point and the Coming Cooling’
“A very large majority of establishment academic climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .The first is an almost total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent patterns which are trivially obvious in solar activity and global temperature data. This causes the natural climate cycle variability to appear frightening and emotionally overwhelming. Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded. The delusionary world inhabited by the eco-left establishment activist elite is epitomized by Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes science-based fiction, ” The Collapse of Western-Civilization: A View from the Future” Oreskes and Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change. Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to convince themselves, politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions………………………
When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
and an earlier accessible blog version at See also
and the discussion with Professor William Happer at

Ray G
November 16, 2019 6:11 pm

Flat earthers have millions of followers around the globe.Are they all wrong?

Bryan A
Reply to  Ray G
November 16, 2019 8:56 pm

Any one of them is wrong so YES they’re All Wrong

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Bryan A
November 16, 2019 10:46 pm

Flat earthers have millions of followers around the globe

I think you missed a subtle element of sarcasm.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 17, 2019 1:25 am

They also advertised a GLOBAL tour a few years ago.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 17, 2019 1:27 am

At least flat-earthers have *SOME* evidence. The ~3%-ers of CO2 global heaters have none.

Curious George
Reply to  Ray G
November 17, 2019 8:34 am

Ray, the Earth is undeniably flat – just look around. Be careful not to climb too high 🙂

November 16, 2019 6:46 pm

‘Almost every press release promising Armageddon is given prominent billing however preposterous the source.’

I got your Armageddon right here: Their “solution” will kill more than the alleged “problem.” Shut off the fossil fuels, and BILLIONS will die.

November 17, 2019 2:11 am

I like Sky Oz’s take on the issue, the following being a good example.

It’s a pity Sky UK is so different in approach. Is Sky a hypocrite organisation?

BTW, if Chris gets upset by McGrab, he’ll love the forthcoming BBC celebration of the 10 year anniversary of the exoneration of the Climategate crooks.

john cooknell
November 17, 2019 3:42 am

Matt got an award, that makes it official, I thought it was just me.

I used to think Matt was a bit of an idiot, now all doubt has been removed. Nice pay off though, perhaps he will buy a Porsche.

Reply to  john cooknell
November 17, 2019 4:57 am

That’s OK, they offer an electric model.

November 17, 2019 9:00 am

never mind the ice ,you cannot put physical heat through the surface of water because of surface tension.

Johann Wundersamer
November 26, 2019 2:06 am

Little or no mention is given to any climate narrative that might hint at a more nuanced or objective discussion. For instance, the news that the Thames flood barrier had only been raised nine times in the past five years – a record low for that period of time going back to the 1980s –

the Thames flood barrier had only been raised nine times in the past five years –> while we learned that Venice is devastated by climate change because Venice’s flood barrier is planned but not built:

%d bloggers like this: