The Guardian: “The Four Types of Climate Denier…”

Guardian Environment Editor Damian Carrington
Guardian Environment Editor Damian Carrington. Source The Guardian

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington wants to pin nasty labels on people who disagree with his views on climate change. But in my opinion Carrington is doing a disservice to his readers, by leaving out a few inconvenient truths.

The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all

Damian Carrington  @dpcarrington
Thu 30 Jul 2020 21.10 AEST

The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the urgent global debate in their own way.

Anew book, described as “deeply and fatally flawed” by an expert reviewer, recently reached the top of Amazon’s bestseller list for environmental science and made it into a weekly top 10 list for all nonfiction titles.

How did this happen? Because, as Brendan Behan put it, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. In an article promoting his book, Michael Shellenberger – with jaw-dropping hubris – apologises on behalf of all environmentalists for the “climate scare we created over the last 30 years”.

But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.

A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/30/climate-denier-shill-global-debate

Guardian Environment Editor Damian Carrington likely hopes if you accept his caricatures, you will ignore what climate skeptics have to say. Because there are climate skeptics who make alarmists really uncomfortable;

The scientists – people like solar physicist Dr. Willie Soon, award winning meteorologist Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, who received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites, Freeman Dyson, a polymath and giant of the Quantum Physics world, and Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen Bomb, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, all of whom dismiss the assertion we face any kind of imminent climate crisis.

The geologists – scientists like Ian Plimer, who reveal that rather than facing a CO2 crisis, the Earth is currently in a state of CO2 starvation, as we endure the ongoing Quaternary Ice Age, a period comparable to the Karoo (360–260 Ma), Andean-Saharan (450–420 Ma), Cryogenian (720–635 Ma) and Huronian (2,400–2,100 Ma) ice ages of the distant past.

The engineers – the people who demolish innumerate claims that renewable energy is any kind of answer to the world’s energy needs. Even a top engineering team from über alarmist Google concluded renewables simply won’t work.

And its not just skeptics who criticise the push for renewables; Former NASA GISS Director James Hansen, whose 1988 testimony before Congress pretty much started the modern climate movement, claims renewables cannot solve the world’s energy problems fast enough to avert a climate crisis.

The ecologists – people who are slowly waking up that any serious attempt to switch the world to renewable energy will devastate what remains of the world’s wildernesses.

The film producers – people like Michael Moore, who shocked political fellow travellers with his ground breaking expose of the failures of renewable energy.

The economists – people like Bjørn Lomborg who accept global warming claims, but point out efforts to address the alleged climate crisis would do more damage than the projected harm from unchecked global warming.

The alarmist climate scientists themselves, with their nature tricks and bullying of editors who allowed critical papers to be published, who ignored substantial evidence given to them by colleagues that the past was warmer than today, all revealed in Climategate.

Guardian editor Damian Carrington could have mentioned all these people and many others, and tried to build a reasoned case for why you should ignore them all – an exceptionally difficult case.

But even listing these skeptic groups, let along describing their work, might have raised doubts in the minds of Carrington’s readers. In an age when British Academics demand critics of climate action be silenced, perhaps Carrington feels justified in his own mind only telling his side of the story.

Update (EW): Added geologists (h/t John Karajas).

167 thoughts on “The Guardian: “The Four Types of Climate Denier…”

    • Exactly, and he forgot number 5 – the seasoned, mature scientist who knows how to interpret actual real-world data.

      Here are 4 types of Guardian editor:

      1) Lying w@nker
      2) Elitist Pr!ck
      3) Phony elitist Pr!ck
      4) Person whose political development never progressed from the 19-year old UK university student level

      I’m sure there are more.

        • I comment regularly at The Hill (Donkey Hill) and often accuse the Warmists of have failed Remedial Kindergarten….

        • Four kinds of climate alarmist: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the “urgent” global debate in their own way. Like pretending it is urgent or that there ever was a debate.

          There is often some cross-over between those categories. For example, M.E. Mann is both a grifter and and egomaniac.

          All four groups can be found at the Guardian’s enviro team. Thanks for a classic example of psychological projection Damien.

      • I think he would be better at describing assholes, i.e., the kind of people he interacts with every day, especially when he combs his hair.

        • “The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the” (utterly non-) “urgent global debate in their own way.”

          You mean people like these?

      • I did expect to see “Voice of the British Communist Party and Workers International.” They have never hidden their politics. Surely then it is not a stretch for someone to imagine that what they print is in service of the agendas of those groups. It is they who said so, not my observation. There is nothing wrong with being a communist visionary. They make interesting dinner guests. Just don’t give them power. They tend to turn into commun-ISISts.

        “What about the workers!?” Well, what about them? If you take all their money to fund renewables and destroy capitalism they will be sitting hungry in the dark for a century. Perhaps with his imagination’n’all, Carrington can come up with a third way forward.

        I think we’ve had enough of the Caps and the Comms talking about acceptable levels of M.A.D. in their earnestness to take over the planet. How’s this: Defund the Guardian until they study metrology and learn the meaning of “balance”.

        • Judging by it’s readership and constant begging for help to fund their ‘unbiased, impartial’ journalism, I suspect it is already pretty much defunded…

          • Isn’t the free market a wonderful thing? No one wants to read the Grauniad, so it’s going out of business, to the outrage of the w@ankers who write for it.

        • An interesting one – ‘how is the Guardian funded’? Certainly not by the readership as nobody reads it. They are a huge loss making concern (meaning company not that anyone is concerned).
          Some of the comrades have been let go as charity can go only so far and the Trust that funds them must be creaking at the seams however, trying to generate sufficient returns to keep them limping along.

          • The Scott Trust who own this paper, are helped by being based ‘off shore’ making use of the very same ‘tax management’ it’s own journalist have attached others for using. Oddly they have nothing at all to say about the Guardian doing the exact same thing.

      • Nice game. Let’s add a few descriptions of climate alarmist journos. I suggest: Sociologist graduates who hate people who make more money than they do; People who pass every exam and hate the world for not rewarding their brilliance; Failed priests; People who can write well but lack all other skills; Those who cannot read a y-x graph; Those who believe any graph; Those who think computers are infallible;Those who don’t know the difference between weather and climate; those with private incomes but want to be like everyone else.
        And the catch-all: the Crypto-fascist-neo-Puritan fundamentalists.

      • I think Carrington should look in a mirror, as he could be classified as a shill, grifter, egomaniac and ideological cool in his utterances.

      • And don’t forget the poorly-paid-but-promised-limitless-career-potential apparatchik pr!ck. Tirelessly willing to repeat-and-creatively-expound-upon whatever buckets of intellectual tripe is sent sliding down the bar. Indeed: would it be overreach to posit that this brand of fool is perhaps the largest resource upon which climate hysteria taps its energies from? Sorry about the sad grammar. GoatGuy

      • Come come Philip, you ate being very hard on a newspaper establishloshed by slave trade money, that earned its recent financing via the sale of a fossil fuel car trading magazine and begs its dwindling band of readers for more money every time they visit, to stave off bankruptcy. They obviously own the moral high ground, as you can see.

        Tonyb

        • Well, funnily enough, despite my california handle, I was born and raised about 25 miles from Manchester, the birthplace of this, what has now become an anachronistic cartoon. Me, Harold Wilson country to be more precise. Back then there really was a need for blue collar worker protection and I was actually a trade union member at the age of 16, working in a factory, which eventually helped me pay my way through university, etc etc. I wouldn’t trade it for a thing.

        • Tonyb: Yes, most comments here don’t give Carrington credit for writing about people he has never met, in fact he refuses to meet them, or listen to them, or read anything they may write, never mind “debate” them. And he writes an article about their (our) thoughts and motivations. You can’t make that up, but he can!! It does help when you know your editor (or any of the famed fact-checkers beloved of tr*lls everywhere) won’t be doing any fact checking.

      • There are 4 basic types of climate true believers

        1.) The renewable nutcase who needs the story to be true to solidify their support and often grind out a living in the industry.

        2.) The eco warrior who wants a return to the good old days which were always better than the current. Humanity is a stain on the natural world and anything humans do can only be bad. Usually a member of greens/greenpeace or both.

        3.) The socialist/marxist who hates capitalism and wants the redistribution of world wealth. They love the idea of climate justice as a mechanism to bring about the change.

        4.) The snout in the trough charlatans. Often refugee scientists from other fields or activist who are attracted to the money splashed around on climate change research and activist groups. They have no job prospects in any real and meaningful field or work but in climate science they can eek out a living.

        • All four can be found at the Guardian. Also at the BBC who are weak in the science area as most of them seem to be poets – they are also very weak at maths, simple proportions are beyond them . They seem to think that the US has the worst Covid record but simple proportions reveals that UK is far worse.

      • Add to the list those that still believe in Santa Claus and never recognised that childhood fables such as the emperor’s new clothes, the boy that cried wolf , the pied Piper and the man the boy and the donkey are parables to warn children of the dangers of mass hysteria and propaganda that have been a plague on humanity for Millenia.
        These people need to be put back in diapers and taken back to preschool to repeat the basic life lessons they failed as children.

    • Agreed Jimmy:
      The shill is the easiest to understand paid by vested interests
      The grifters have found themselves earning a living by grinding out alarmist articles
      The egomaniacs are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled
      The ideological fool can be intelligent, but they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits belief in climate models or other alarmists without examining comprehensive data.

    • How about this, Damian, you dormouse: I don’t really give a flying frack in space what you think of me or my independent mind.

      Oh, lest I forget, since you sit on your own brain most of the time, you should occasionally let it outside for a little fresh air. I’m sure it will be glad of the chance to escape your melon.

      Toodles!!!

      What? Too ornery? Oh, well….. 😉

    • Exactly right. Are they so deluded that they truly believe that the money is to be made on the sceptical side? Shills and grifters make up 100% of the renewable energy and climate change academia industry. These people are so used to their unquestioning PC bubble that they can’t imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with them. It’s the direct result of the cancel culture: viewing disagreement as an excuse for violence and destroying lives. I sadly don’t see a way forward, the leftists/anarchists seem to have won the day.

    • @ Jimmy Haigh,

      Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington has just written one of the most glaring examples of projection ever penned. They walk among themselves.

    • ‘The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool’

      It always amazes me how progresses unerringly broadcast what they actually are by trying to hang the label on their opponents.

      This guy seems to literally be ALL those at once.

    • “a journalist for 20 years and previously worked on staff at the Financial Times, New Scientist and BBC News Online. He has a PhD in geology”

      Why….would anyone with an PhD in something then have to go work in another sector?

      Just asking, because as a health sector analyst…the last few months have worn me down and I’d like to write badly for a living as well.

  1. There are also the geologists who can present tomes and tomes of scientific data that show that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had almost nil effect on whether Earth had global warming or major glaciations in the geological past. But then a humanities training is so much better to equip you to understand the right political context of your restricted, car-dominated, urban environment, right? /sarc.

  2. The shills for vested interests, the grifters for a pay-cheque, the egomaniacs whose careers have stalled, and the ideological fools are also prominent categories of Climate Alarmists.
    On the Climate Realist side, the scientists of Climate, the engineers of energy, the ecologists, the film producers, and the economists are making the Climate alarmists very uncomfortable as they turn up the heat on the Climate lies and distortions.

  3. So, if you are none of those 4 types, you are not a Climate Denier.

    No-one on WUWT could be classed a climate denier under those headings.

    (except perhaps Mosh: types 1,2,3 and Nick, type 3,4).

    Maybe you are a Climate REALIST, that actually follows the real science and data. !

  4. There is so much psychic satisfaction that comes from classifying people and then dismissing them. Seems a bit like a waste of time….

    • Mr. kilty: From his pov, less of a waste than reading what we think, much quicker if you just make it up, even easier if you project.
      Your dry conclusion made me laugh out loud, thx.

  5. I’m very upset.

    I’ve published dozens of articles on climate change, in multiple forums, and no one has paid me a dime. WTF? I was supposed to get PAID!? Why am I just finding out about this now?

    Anth_ny, could you please advise what your going rate it and how many articles you owe me money for? 12? 15? Been a while, I’ve forgotten. What’s that? The going rate is $0.00? I’m in Canada so we need to do a currency conversion… d*mn, still $0.00. How’s THAT work? Sorry, but I think I’m going to have to call the Guardian and find out how much you owe me. I’m certain they will take my call….

    • I don’t know where they get this idea that skeptics are paid to be skeptical.

      Skeptics come by it naturally. They don’t need to get paid. Although it would be nice if skeptics were paid, it’s just that this doesn’t happen because there are too many volunteers.

      Notice how skeptics are never motivated by the facts, according to Alarmists, it’s always money. Maybe they just can’t believe that skeptics would look at things the way they do (not accept the “consensus”), so it must be something else than belief, it must be money.

      No, there’s no money involved on the skeptic side. Next time an alarmist makes this claim someone ought to challenge them to provide some evidence that skeptics are paid to be skeptical. It will be “crickets” just like it is when requests are made for Alarmists to provide evidence showing Human-caused climate change is real.

      • “I don’t know where they get this idea that skeptics are paid to be skeptical.”

        It’s another example of projection. They are adjust their opinions based on what they can get for it, so they assume everyone else does as well.

      • Sorry, but they all have been furnished with the ready reply which they believe is a discussion stopper:
        Willie Soon paid by Exxon (or whomever), and
        Fred Singer, paid by a tobacco company for a review of a study of 2nd hand smoke. If he takes money from Big Tobacco, why wouldn’t he accept it Big Oil?).
        Drop the Mike! Walk away.

        Of course I know why those examples are bogus, so let’s not “miller” the thread with defenses of Drs Soon and Singer.

      • There is a lot of cross-over between the way Climate Alarmist fanatics talk about non-fanatics, and the way anti-Semites talk about Jews. About 80% of it is projection, 10% is unadulterated malice and 10% is a lack of imagination. I knew a number of progressives at university, and they had a terrible time getting to grips with the arguments of their interlocutors, even properly understanding them. I suspect they feel (and they are completely ‘feeling’ oriented) that if they study and spend time understanding the arguments of their opponents, their faith in their own rightness might be damaged. That’s a terrible way to go through life.

  6. Yes, but his ‘opinion’ will be published and disseminated among the populace. Dissenters will be ignored by those that publish.

    • “Dissenters will be ignored by those that publish.”

      Not just ignored.

      All evidence to their very existence will be erased. !

    • mark,
      Being published in the Guardian is in no the same as saying it will be distributed/disseminated among the public. Virtually no one buys the Guardian. If it wasn’t for the free issues given to hotels and such like, the Guardian would not have any reason to be printed publish because it does not have a customer base worth the effort.

  7. Exon Mobil just announced some new break through in CO2 sequestration. The company already brags that it is one of the biggest in the world in putting away that evil CO2. The Guardian is of course no guardian at all and the Left is entirely consistent in accusing others of what the Left is guilty of…..Al Gore for instance is all 4 in one ….he is a shill and grifter and egomaniac and apparently an ideologue fool except – maybe if you woke Al up in the middle of the night and demanded to know if man is really heating the environment – he would reply no before he realized he betrayed his act.

  8. The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool …

    This pretty much applies to Climate Alarmists as well. Al Gore is all four of them.

  9. This describes the climate communists very well one of their techniques is to take their own failures an attribute that to others. It is the climate communists that cannot face reality.

    • Agree. My point well said!! I argue the Left simply looks in a mirror and calls others what they see. It is a very good offensive tactic. As realists, we await information on real data which puts us on the defence.

  10. Indentitarian to the core, the Guardian and progressives just cannot help but putting things into pigeon-holes of relative evilness.

    • Indentitarian? Is that a thing?

      Like always insisting on unnecessarily indenting their paragraphs?

      Never mind me, I’m just an egomaniacal ideological fool.

  11. I’m happiest when the temperature is under 70°F. Today our little device said 99.1°. Not unusual for central Washington USA, but not welcome either. We call it summer. There is a picture of a sign that says: August, be cool!

    Thus, this Damian Carrington bloke — bless his little heart — provided a good chuckle as I contemplate going out to do a few chores.
    I wonder if one can be paid to be as dense as a rock, or whether one has to be born with the trait?

  12. The Guardian’s catchphrase tells us everything we need. “Opinion is free. Facts are sacred.” Isn’t it free on line? Or, as mate from the UK says: “My dad says lotteries are tax on idiots, as he opens The Guardian, at £3.24 a day.

  13. “If you can’t answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” – Elbert Hubbard

  14. ”The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the urgent global debate in their own way.”

    Ha ha ha ha. What a delusional moron.

  15. The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.

    A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

    The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

    The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

    The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the false science and economic disasters associated with climate inaction. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which ecomaniacs can lobby against measures that cut their potential funding.

    A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out eco-doom articles for leftwing/socialist media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the fear they foster, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

    The ecomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people who fear their careers will stall and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance and stop using fossil energy. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly dire climate doom pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-reaffirming, 21st-century Jim Jones.

    The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate doomer, and they can be pseudo-intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their insane, no-limits version of the Carbon cost-market creedo. Their preconceived notions regarding their believed climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like what it actually is…communism in disguise.

    There, fixed it

  16. The Guardian trumpeted that in their battle against AGW skepticism, the Guardian wants to be more scientifically accurate–see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment. Below is an example of their “scientific accuracy.”

    “3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
    ‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.”

    If the Guardian’s claim that “greenhouse gases stop the sun’s heat [from] escaping back to space,” solar accumulated heat within the earth/earth-atmosphere system must forever reside within the earth/earth-atmosphere system. This logically implies (1) if the sun stopped providing heat to the earth, the earth would retain whatever solar heat it had accumulated up to the cessation of solar heat input–with the result that although the earth’s temperature might decrease because the claim does not logically preclude the loss of heat not supplied by the sun (radioactive decay, collisions with other solar system objects, tidal friction, etc.), the earth would eventually settle at a temperature consisted with the heat accumulated from the sun up to the cessation of solar heat input; and (2) as long as the rate the sun supplies heat to the earth does not asymptotically approach zero, the heat content of the earth will increase without bound–with the result that the earth’s temperature will increase without bound. Neither (1) nor (2) is true. Thus, the statement “greenhouse gases stop the sun’s heat [from] escaping back to space,” may be “scientific,” but it is neither precise nor accurate. IT IS WRONG.

    So much for conflating “precision/accuracy/scientific” with anything the Guardian publishes.

    • “Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.” — The Guardian

      Everyplace that I’ve ever been on Earth has nighttime temperatures that are noticeably cooler than daytime temperatures, excluding the transient passages of weather fronts and storms. I’m just wondering where that trapped heat goes during the night.

      • ” I’m just wondering where that trapped heat goes during the night.”
        Like the rest of us it goes to bed for a sleep !!

        Didn’t you learn nufink @ skool fizziks (;-))

  17. Stupid me. The title to the above article starts with these two words “The Guardian”.

    I should have known to stop reading right then and there.

    I had my second chance upon seeing the body text begin with “Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington . . .”

    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

  18. I would break down the “deniers” as such:

    1) That that have learned to distrust group think and recognize propaganda when they see it
    2) Those that simply deny humans are capable of destroying the world – it’s arrogant to think we could
    3) Those that know science intimately and know pseudo-science when they see it
    4) Those that know computer modeling intimately and realize what modern day climatologists are trying to do is not possible
    5) Those that watch the data collection closely and know how badly it it being manipulated

    One can be a hybrid of any of the above. We used to call these people things like Naturalists and Scientists, but now scorn them as impediments to instigating progressive change for the good of the people. This is what usually happens just before a culture collapses into socialism.

    We can blame the modern school systems for this – they have transformed from teaching to indoctrination.

  19. https://bgr.com/2020/07/29/coronavirus-recovery-time-heart-symptoms-side-effects/

    “The researchers took blood tests and heart tissue biopsies and performed MRIs on all the patients. The data was then compared to readings from 50 healthy volunteers and 57 volunteers that had underlying conditions. The study showed that the people infected with the virus developed heart issues regardless of the other medical conditions they were suffering from, and regardless of the severity of COVID-19.”

    Heart issues regardless of the severity of the Wuhan virus infection? That doesn’t sound good.

  20. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this seems important:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-thousands-of-covid-19-survivors-could-be-diagnosed-with-sepsis-charity-warns-12037944

    “People are being warned to familiarise themselves with the symptoms of sepsis after a study found that as many as 20,000 COVID-19 survivors could be diagnosed with the condition within a year.

    One in five people who receive hospital treatment for the coronavirus are at risk, according to the UK Sepsis Trust.”

    end excerpt

    The Wuhan virus is not like anything we have seen before.

    It would behoove people not to catch it if they can possibly avoid it. A vaccine may fix this problem, but theraputics may not, as they may not rid the body of the virus soon enough before serious damage is done.

    The Chicoms released this nasty virus into the world deliberately.

      • Sepsis is related to inflamation in the body and the Wuhan virus causes inflamation in the body.

        I’m not sure what these doctors are making their future predictions on. I don’t know why they think sepsis is in the future for a patient, if it is not a problem for the patient now, but that’s the claim.

        We still have a lot to learn about the Wuhan virus and it effects on the body.

  21. The absurdity of the alarmist demands is that they totally ignore the GHG emissions from developing countries. These emissions are the only ones that have grown in 40 years, already make up 2/3 of total GHG emissions, and they are the only countries that have the potential to further increase their emissions, due to their developing status. The absurdity of climate alarmist demands, that are limited to western countries, lies in the UN policy framework that allows developing countries to prioritise economic outcomes above emissions reductions. This exemption or free pass is why GHGs are rapidly increasing in the atmosphere and the impositions on western countries with the stable 1/3 global emissions is only acting to further drive their emissions intensive industry to developing countries, speeding up their development and driving up emissions even faster. Because the developing countries have such enormous populations, you then open up a pandora’s box of GHG potential, which is exactly what we see in the numbers.

    Therefore, IMO – It’s no coincidence that GHG emissions have increased more since the 1992 UN Climate Convention agreement than in the 250 years prior, and all coming from developing countries. The truth of the matter is that the UN and the broader climate alarmist community fully understood the consequences of the Climate Convention agreement way back in 1992 and still have no plans to enforce emissions reductions in the developing countries. The only conclusion you can draw from the UN climate conventions, including the most recent Paris agreement, is that the UN is certain CO2 is harmless and climate change doesn’t exist, because the entire premise of the agreement is to drive up GHG in the atmosphere to increase wealth in the developing nations, whilst making the developed countries poorer in the process, by enforcing policies that reduce energy availability whilst driving up cost.

    • Taylor used profits he made trading cotton that was acquired from plantations that used slave labour to found the newspaper. He never owned or bought or sold slaves.

      I still find that unacceptable: but I post it not as an excuse or explanation, but in the interests of accuracy.

      Because this website is based on fact and science, not smearing even those long dead, right?

      • Absolutely, yet he was obviously connected to the slave trade. And it was said tongue in cheek as a dig at the nonsense we are seeing on our streets these days.

      • “Because this website is based on fact and science, not smearing even those long dead, right?”

        That’s right. Just the facts please.

  22. Beware Damian !

    Most of the useful idiots of the climate clown show are already fleeing away.

    You will be among the last lost in the climate parish.

  23. This guy is a complete tosser.
    The alarmists (those that believe) have two strategies in the absence of actual data.
    First you call in the children to enforce the theory where there is no evidence to support it.
    Second you attack the people who opose you.
    With regards

  24. My only conclusion is that the Guardian is so short of useful articles to write that the Editor has chosen to print anything, rather than have blank pages. Surely the Editor can see that this stuff is nonsense? I wonder who pays him to publish it, now that is an interesting question. Follow the money….

  25. The COGS (Constantly Offended Green Socialists) are slowly turning, sadly the Guardian and the BBC aren’t, they continue down their errant path to scientific denial of natural climate variability.

  26. He’s been a spiteful, vindictive b’stard for years and this latest campaign confirms (yet again) the Guardian’s position as the single most repulsive organ on Fleet Street. Debate is central to science yet here they are stifling it for all they’re worth, while sprinkling the whole subject with poison.

  27. A very accurate article . Once you reverse the doublethink to make the alarmists the true deniers..

    But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

    The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.

    Exactly so. The renewable lobby maintains a vast army of people whose job is is to lie and lie again on behalf of the rent seeking profiteers of Green.


    A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for leftwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

    He should know: It’s what he does.


    The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

    A better description of Michael Mann has never been written…

    The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the climate change creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

    Indeed it does and that is why they support it.

  28. Remember this is the ‘newspaper’ that in classic Leftist fashion re-wrote terms used to refer to ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’. They did so not to use more accurate terms, but because the public weren’t sufficiently scared by benign ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ terms, which had lost their catastrophic allure.

    Hence climate ‘crisis’, ’emergency’ and ‘breakdown’ were all imported, as was the absurd ‘global heating’! Fake terms used to describe a fake scare. Entirely in-keeping with the Guardian.

  29. Other kinds of “climate denier”:

    Rational people with scientific training
    People who aren’t gullible fools that read the Grauniad

    But, as I am starting to notice very much, there is another group:

    Ordinary people, but especially those in the trades such as electrician, plumber, mechanics.

    The Guardian newspaper circulation in January 2020 was 126,879. Most of those copies are probably sold as the in-house paper for the BBC.

    The Guardian and its readers are a tiny minority, a bunch of gullible, woke fools who appear not to have had their bullsh!t or common-sense filters installed at birth. Unlike electricians, plumbers and the like.

  30. “The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the urgent global debate in their own way.”
    Debate?
    Definition of debate: ‘noun. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:’
    Here’s another word.
    Delusion: noun. an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

  31. The Climate Alarmist genus, aka Caeli Clamitor divide roughly into four species, recognizing that there is a great deal of hybridization: 1) the Idiot, or Stultus, 2) the Profiteer, or Praedator, 3) the Ideologue, or Ideologus, and 4) the Comrade, or Socius. Of course, there are also sub-species, but we don’t want to get bogged down in those. However, Mr. Carrington happens to inhabit a very special sub-species – the Fake Journalist, or Fictus Diurnarius. He is also a hybrid, appearing to inhabit all four species. This would put him into the category of Caeli Clamitor Stultus Praedator Ideologus Socius Fictus Diurnius. A very special category indeed.

  32. There is only one type of climate denier: People who think that destroying the natural environment isn’t the cause of everything going wrong.

  33. The Guardian, I wouldn’t even wipe my arse with it.

    Their readership are just the most awful “petty bourgeoisie” imaginable.
    They love to swan around screeching to anyone unfortunate enough to be in earshot of their insufferable diatribes.
    These people are despised for their arrogance and flagrant hypocrisy in all matters.

    From their own readership profile page, it states that 95% of their readers read nothing else but the Guardian!!
    Says it all really.

    85% of their readers are ABC1 social grade, that means no working class/skilled working class read their crap. Wonder why?

    60% define themselves as progressive, or as the Guardian sees them “….. a valuable audience for advertisers representing a more affluent, upmarket, socially conscious and digitally savvy consumer”

    So total mugs in fact willing to buy anything as long as the Wilsons at N°14 can see it from their garden, and they just love to travel, on average 3 trips a year on big jet planes, in cars, on trains…. but oh the climate!

    What they never understand these unimportant “bien pensants” is that come the revolution they’ll be the first up against the wall.

  34. A bit depressing to skim through some 600 posts about this article on the Guardian website. A lot of vituperative name calling which I do hope the rationalists won’t descend to. And there’s a strong leftward bias, a hatred of President Trump and his views of the 2015
    Paris Agreement (which turn out to be more and more justified as the years of inaction go by). A characteristic of left-leaning alarmists is that they never ‘read around the subject’ as I was taught to do at Uni. In fact most of them know no science and do no reading of any sort. Easy victims of the ‘consensus’.

    • Hey, they started it. Besides, I am of the strong opinion that when the Enemy hands you a weapon, you should use it.

  35. “The Four Types of Climate Denier…”
    How about the Four Types of Climate Alarmist
    1. The honest one… Michael Shellenberger, Patrick Moore, Michael Moore
    2. The dishonest one… Michael Mann, Al Gore, Peter Gleick
    3. The delusional one… Paul Ehrlich, Peter Wadhams, Bill Mckibben
    4. The honorable one… fill this space

  36. Commentators like Carrington come only in one variety: the deluded idiot.

    He has forgotten the most important category in his list: number 5, the knowledgeable.

  37. I’ve never understood why Greens give a pass to type 5) The “Hypocrite” , i.e. the person who denies through their actions while simultaneously proclaiming loudly that they believe and that everybody must change (except them). This of course would include all the private-jeterati and coastal mansion dwellers. Greens should be after these “deniers by action” because the common masses see how they act and correctly infer that they really don’t believe and thus neither should they. I think this class of “denier” is more dangerous to the Green cause than any of the others, after all, when we see our “betters” starting to act like they believe it we may actually be convinced to start to worry.

  38. Denier is a term used in religous arguments.

    It means “you don’t share our **(religious) belief …”

    It is invariably used by people who either know the science does not support them, or more commonly by those who have absolutely no idea what the science says.

    **group-thinkers never have their own views.

  39. The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all […] The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool

    Well, I agree about ignoring shills, grifters, egomaniacs and ideological fools. Now, how about all those people reasonably skeptic and which are capable of justifying their positions with actual scientific data?

  40. The Guardian is extra-political entity masquerading as free press. It has a membership paying a supscription to, “support” it. It campaigns on a wide range of issues advocating left wing, big government, socially liberal policy.

    The Guardian however, lacks the strength of moral character to test it’s beliefs in the democratic field. Unlike say, the Co-operative Society who put up candidates affiliated to the Labours socialist party. The Guardian may say its journalism holds government to account. But by the measure of that constituency, it is failing as copy sold falls.

  41. A number of posts above point out accurately the Guardian has diminishing circulation and influence, is a minority interest of a certain political viewpoint.

    so given its so unimportant and set in its ways: stop reading it! Ignore it!

    you’ll all be a lot happier!

    Or do you want to deliberately raise your blood pressure?

    • Au contraire, we’re all just having a laugh at this Alarmist in particular, but in all you Alarmists in general. And laughter, as they say, is the best medicine. It is in fact the Climate Caterwaulers such as yourself who need to check their BP.

    • One of the “tricks” the Left employs is to get just one media entity to publish a story with limited or even no basis, that supports their narrative.
      Then all other media can republish the story with no responsibility for fact checking simply by saying “the Guardian reported…..”.

      Note this is similar to the tactic Christopher Steele and the Democrats used to get the false dossier in front of the American public. (Steele also leaked it simultaneously to TWO papers so the FBI could claim “multiple sources”.)

    • It sure as hell doesn’t raise my blood pressure. I just read that shiite to know what’s not the truth. I go to articles that have titles like “fact check” and “fact checker” because it’s the fastest way to know what aren’t the facts.

      Who could have predicted that this would become a profession?

    • Unfortunately, the failing Grauniad has influence on the BBC, education sphere, and local government far beyond its tiny circulation.

  42. Based on the Guardian article, at least we don’t have “Useful Idiots” like they have on the alarmist side. Lots and lots and lots and lots of useful idiots.

  43. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

    They used reverse psychology to trick people into accepting communism.

    The main type of alarmist whine like crybabies who can’t get their way.

  44. At every turn either in the UK, US, or Australia the governments, media and leftists are in concert to take away every single pillar of self-defense against their agenda, including the right to speech, dissent, and assembly.

    If the US changes hands this election they won’t just be talking about silencing their opposition.

    Communists revolutions end after they’ve eliminated their opposition.

    If you like your life being micromanaged just go along with them – or be ‘reeducated’ or eliminated.

  45. A critique of people who think for themselves vs. “scientists” and “leaders” who lie about climate and whatever else might suit their cause – which is control and power over others – nothing else. Full stop!
    As a free thinker I find these useful idiots and their leaders a particularly despicable brand of person.
    This is particularly tragic when one can freely read of the real truth behind their fabrications and use of any plot to create instability and doubt among people.

  46. We should become CLIMATE REALISTS, ALSO ENERGY REALISTS

    1. POSITIONING: Why do we simply accept the deceivers and media shills calling us denier’s, to assume the position of being the teller’s of truth these priests of deceit are provably not?

    Why accept the deceivers deciding the language when they can only respond with ad hom attacks when confronted by factual reality we provide. We are the realists, and know reality that most of them are wholly unqualified to opine on. They are the deniers.

    WE SHOULD RE BRAND OURSELVES AS CLIMATE/SCIENCE REALISTS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS VS THEIR CORRUPT DECEIT TO GAIN POWER FOR A FAST BUCK.

    2. THE WRONG ARGUMENT: We are also allowing the enemy to control the science that is discussed, so in fact having a fatuous argument about an insignificant effect and one of Feynman’s “Vague Propositions” built arounf vagueness to avoid proof or disproof. Except , once we got stallite records, JOhn CHristy produce the disproof. But the scam still requires belief in the models over the observations.

    WE should stop arguing the side effect of lapse rate/GHE in which which CO2 is a small effect in a small effect, as distinct from the natural lapse rate insulation effect on any planet in the solar system.

    Surely it is MUCH BETTER to point out the small change in GHE and hence SST is a small effect easily controlled by the dominant and massive negative feedback in response to SST change of the oceans that really controls the climate, of changing evaporation and hence latent heat transport to space, plus the formation of clouds that reflect the sun, that is the dominant control of our climate. Currently at 150W/m^2 and highly responsive to change in the tropics where SST is c.300 degrees.

    The small effect of CO2 on GHE, dominantly varied by water vapour, is all easily compensated for by these simple controls, that have taken on all comers since there were oceans and kept Earth within a few degrees of 300 degs above the surrounding space. Where is any evidence for a delicate balance and tipping points, compared to serial evidence of resilience to te massive perturbations of ice age interglacials, super volcanoes, asteroid strikes, short and long term effects are equally managed, etc. There is clearly no significant effect possible from a small change in GHE. CO2 and lapse rate is not a control of climate, its a small part of the overall system that can perturb SST, but that perturbation is easily controlled and equalised by the dominant control.

    Nobody ever explains this simple to understand fact, and seem to prefer to argue the false premise about CO2 and GHE as the dominant control of SST, as if the real dominant control didn’t exist.

    Yet it can easily be explained, roughly at 150W/m^2 currently per NASA, 100 times the claimed effect of AGW per models, and very sensitive to any change in SST.

    WHY ISN”T IT?

    • “what is a climate denier?

      They are actually calling you a denier of Human-caused Climate Change. You have to add “Human-caused” to it each time in order to understand what they are really saying.

      They are playing with words. They don’t add the “Human-caused” part, because they assume all climate change is human-caused, and they want everyone else to make that same assumption, even though there is no evidence supporting the claim that humans are changing the climate. Mind games. Propaganda. Brainwashing.

  47. Four ad hominem attacks illustrates succinctly the non-science basis of Damian Carrington’s climate change beliefs.

    Reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke:
    I went to the doctor the other day. The doctor said “Rodney, You’re fat!” I said “Doc, I want a second opinion.” He said “OK, You’re ugly too!” I tell ya, I get no respect!

  48. that’s exactly proves there is no scientific debate about climate anymore , but only a form of religious conflict without rational discussions ! Reporters are not able to understand the word “uncertainties” which describes the best all provided models from which any conclusion can be deduced .
    just wait and see …

  49. The Guardian is a loss making, very left wing publication. It has made climate change alarmism a mission. It issues reporting guidelines to its journalists to ratchet up the alarmist nature of the rhetoric. It used to employ a number of global warming supporting academics and authors but has had to retreat from that, probably due to poor funding.

    My guess is that this is a cheap (literally) way of kicking the enemy and rallying the troops. No doubt the BBC will pick up the story and run with it. Someone once said, “The BBC and the Guardian are two cheeks of the same a**e.” What a marvellous description, please let us know if you know the source.

    • Yes, “a marvelous description”.

      In Canada it would be the CBC and the Toronto Star side by side
      In the USA?..perhaps CNN and the New York Times.

  50. Right idea-Wrong Target

    Activists are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four categories:

    The shill is paid by vested interests to produce propaganda to advance the agenda of their employer.

    The grifter earns a living by exploiting an issue with no real interest in solving the problem their livelihood depends on.

    The egomaniacs are desperate to be noticed and can’t understand why the world refuses to recognize their brilliance.

    The ideological fool can be intelligent but is utterly blinded by an inane vision of a future utopia just beyond the horizon.

  51. When you are confronted with evidence that global warming isn’t happening, or isn’t man-made:

    1) say it’s not true; it’s all “denier talking points”. Talking points you can’t refute.
    2) tell everyone that it’s been “debunked” – when it hasn’t, and you couldn’t if you wanted to.
    3) pretend that the person isn’t a “scientist”, or if they are…somehow aren’t a “real scientist”.
    4) pretend that the source of the truth must be tainted by “fossil fuel money”, the Heartland Institute, the Koch brothers, or some other shadowy, suspicious entity.
    5) Load up the discussion with extraneous “facts” from the IPCC and Greenpeace, no matter how discredited, irrelevant, or unverified.
    6) call the person challenging you stupid, a denier, or a “flat-earther”.
    7) pretend that the only opposition to you is “religious”.

    That’s the entire playbook, right there.

  52. The giants of the climate crusades will be viewed as the Ozymandias of our time. The court jesters and court scribes will be forgotten long before that.

    Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

  53. Um, how about the scientist like me? Who has looked very carefully at the data, especially all the contributing variables. And who found most of the warming during the IPCC’s chosen century of 1906-2005 was due to the Sun, plus a bit of chicanery with timings causing the ~60 year cycle to be booked as warming – which anyone can see is an artefact.

    The reason that climate scientists don’t debate sceptics anymore is because they always lose – the data supports the sceptics. No amount of name calling will change this – the data is what it is.

  54. It is sad to see this once respected radical paper descend into a loony religious mania. It bleats about human rights and reports every ‘progressive’ cause it can find It does not extend those right to anyone who disagrees with either climate change/AGW science, or the severity of the supposed threat, or the solutions to this ‘crisis’.
    This disgusting piece of journalism is so hateful and derogatory it must compare to the propaganda from Nazi Germany.

  55. The Guardian editorial staff wrote underneath:

    96 days to save the Earth …
    … we’re all in. Are you? On November 4, a day after the presidential election, the US will formally withdraw from the Paris agreement on constraining global heating. It’s urgent that we tell the world what this means, and the Guardian is pulling out all the stops to do so. …

    Right. So this (and the whole newspaper) is a Democratic election pamphlet. A real guarantee of objectivity.

  56. Oh, dear. I am a true blue denier. I do not gain financially from this belief. I am a mathematician, and I rely on data. This website got my attention 20 years ago, when the first news came out about the failure to site Stevenson screens in a manner which would provide accurate data. Too many were near heat sources or asphalt surfaces. I already knew about the heat island effect, as paved cities tend to absorb solar radiation more than forests and grasslands. That was known centuries ago. Folk who lived in Washington, D.C. in 1820 in Foggy Bottom went above the fall line to Mount Pleasant to spend the summer, as it was cooler there.
    And then I began to learn of the lack of sourcing for the “hockey stick”, gloriously debunked by IowaHawk some years ago. And then came the leaked emails from East Anglia University.
    Meanwhile our ignorance remains vast concerning what, exactly, happens as the earth radiates heat energy through the atmosphere. It is certain that there is a greenhouse effect, which can be observed by comparing moon temperatures to Earth temperatures. The heat still escapes, though the rate is difficult to measure.
    And now it turns out that our variable Sun has gone suspiciously quiet. That is not a matter of opinion, it is matter of measuring 10 cm radiation. And that radiation is off the charts low. And sunspots have disappeared. This last happened in 1650, causing Galileo to be denounced as a fraud as his spots could not be found. And then the Thames froze over and London had a carnival on the ice. And the North Sea froze over, and Hans Brinker won fame with his silver skates. That is historical record. The spots returned in about 1715.
    And there still remain vast quantities of carbon dioxide in mineral deposits all over the Earth.
    And then there is the ice core data, which shows about a 1000 year lag between heating and CO2 increase.
    Call me a denier if you must. I have a t-shirt which says: ‘In God we trust. All others bring data.”

Leave a Reply

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