Essay by Eric Worrall
All the muted climate claims of previous years apparently represent climate scientists holding back for fear of intimidation.
Years of climate scepticism have done untold damage
Erroneous claims, scientific caution and poor media coverage held back policymaking on global warming
Switzerland is generally feeble at making global headlines.
…
I say “we” have failed to act, but that is not quite right. Those determined to preserve an overwhelmingly fossil-fuelled economy bear an outsized responsibility. And this week has been a reminder that others are not blame-free. That includes those of us in the news media and, to some extent, the UN body that delivered Monday’s report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
…
Bob Carter, an Australian geologist, scoffed that the climate had always changed; there was nothing odd about recent warming and trying to end it was as pointless as trying to stop an earthquake. This would be unimaginable today. Likewise, it is bracing to look back at an editorial a few days later in the Las Vegas Review-Journal headlined “Global warming alarmists push false premises”.
…
An absorbing new insider’s account suggests the impact on scientists was real. In his book, Five Times Faster, former UK government climate adviser Simon Sharpe reveals that, far from exaggerating the climate threat, scientists have often shied away from giving governments worst-case scenarios.
…
Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/bcc3e9db-96a8-4ae1-a536-5496d88720f4
I’m shocked at the accusation. WUWT doesn’t intimidate alarmist climate scientists, we encourage them to speak their minds, so we can entertain our readers with all their wildly wrong predictions. How much fun would we have missed, if climate scientists kept all their end of world fantasies bottled up?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wikipedia:
Ms Clark is quite entitled to her scientific opinion:
https://www.ft.com/pilita-clark
…but even wokeepedantia acknowledges Clark’s eminence in his fields of study and his position in a simple lede sentence. Then again, the first rule of yellow journalism is that the dead can’t respond or sue for slander.
Yes, this is a perfect indicator that anything to do with “climate science” and “climate change” is indeed a religious cult. None of the tenets or dogma can be questioned, and any one who does (or did) is marked as a heretic.
The University of Helsinki confirmed this anew on Monday by announcing that it was giving climate hysteric Greta Thunberg an honorary doctorate…in theology.
Well. Now that sorta puts things in perspective.
They are intimidated for the same reason people generally do not step in front of an approaching train wearing a Superman outfit. Reality hits even the most magnificent fantasy with unrelenting force.
This afternoon’s email from NetZero:
(It’s not easy to add any more is it)
1) Shell warns IPCC’s Net Zero target may not be hit until … 2100
The Times, 22 March 2023
2) The UN’s newest climate report is a woke dumpster fire masquerading as science
The Daily Caller, 21 March 2023
3) UN report predicting climate catastrophe in 2030 met with mockery: ‘Every single prediction’ has been ‘wrong’
Fox News, 20 March 2023
4) UN climate study proves the fight to lower global temps won’t work
Editorial, New York Post, 20 March 2023
5) Cheryl K. Chumley: The ‘climate time-bomb’ is coming!
The Washington Times, 21 March 2023
6) Matthew Lynn: The UN’s ‘scientific’ climate report is nothing more than confected hysteria
The Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2021
7) Michael Shellenberger: The UN is a climate “Disinformation Threat Actor”
Public Substack, 20 March 2023
8) Brendan O’Neill: Climate hysteria is a luxury belief we can no longer afford
Spiked, 21 March 2023
9) Ross Clark: The UN’s global Net Zero target isn’t realistic
The Spectator, 21 March 2023
edit: Ooops,
I didn’t think it would come like that but it’s nice that the links seen to be alive.
there is a reason you don’t see any climate alarmists participating in climate debates – even they know they will look foolish and as the head of the UNIPCC stated some years ago – the climate movement is really more about destroying capitalism than the environment
Question:
How to avoid a debate loss?
Answer:
Don’t debate.
Of course we don’t intimidate scientists. I see this as an act of desperation from the global warming lobby. There people are loosing the debate and need to resort to gutter tactics to try and regain ascendancy.
scoffed that the climate had always changed
Do they believe that this is an incorrect statement?
Maybe they are Creationists.
That ‘climate has always changed‘ has often been listed as one of the big denier lies.
“Peer Review as Shadow Cancelling: If you think academics can avoid abuses by keeping out of politics, think again.” by Bruce Oliver Newsome • 21 Mar 2023
Those of you who recall climate gate from a few years ago remember how the “climate scientists” said they were going redefine peer review to shut out skeptical voices.
One can only conclude that questioning climate science is a form of intimidation. An aggression. Probably racist, too.
Snowflakes everywhere. Remember when scientists were required to support their conclusions with facts and data? When they had to use logic and reason? You know, back when science was real?
If there is a more self-important, smug, irritating a-hole than Hey-Ho I have yet to see he/her/xi/xer. May she find herself in a pile of polar bear dung that reaches just above her nostrils.
The main source of intimidation is the vague awareness that bold-faced lies and out and out fraud will ultimately be overcome by the public’s access to the truth, and the fact that nature will present reality in the form of normal weather/climate every time someone looks out their window. Global warming alarmists, like all fraudsters, know that one day the masses may come knocking on their doors with some very difficult questions to answer. Ill deeds attract punishment as money attracts prophets of doom.
While the chicken littles run around squawking and seeking perpetual attention the rest of us will be aware that we are living in the absolute best time for human society in terms of health, longevity, wealth, freedom, and security. The only thing that has a serious possiblitiy of taking us back to the stone age is the belief that our use of energy is a bad thing rather than the defining ingredient in human success while preserving a healthy natural world.
wealth, freedom, and security for the average person is seeming more and more like a historical narative
“Erroneous claims, scientific caution and poor media coverage held back policymaking on global warming“
says Pilita Clark, the so-called “science journalist” with a BA in English.
She may just be having a mid-life crisis: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2023/03/20/pilita-clark-the-envy-at-work-that-dares-not-speak-its-name
She is apparently realizing that a life spent hyping climate hysteria was wasted, accomplishing nothing.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been under the impression that it’s the skeptics who are intimidated. Threats of cancellation or worse, science papers being rejected etc.
They’re the ones being quiet and holding back.
Has anyone ever been fired because they proclaimed climate doom and gloom?
On the other hand I know of quite a few who have been fired for disagreeing with them.
“Those determined to preserve an overwhelmingly fossil-fuelled economy bear an outsized responsibility.”
Being sceptical about climate change science and one’s views on transitioning to non-fossil fueled energy sources are independent ideas.
Transitioning without the aim of “carbon free” is a different requirement with a different time frame.
We are making progress. These jokers haven’t seen anything yet.
“scientists have often shied away from giving governments worst-case scenarios.”
Now that is hard to imagine!
Maybe they have been holding back RCP1269375629.5
The FT is junk rag these days
A great example of wishful thinking:
Bob Carter, an Australian geologist, scoffed that the climate had always changed; there was nothing odd about recent warming and trying to end it was as pointless as trying to stop an earthquake. This would be unimaginable today.
Please, show us the data that debunked Bob’s opinions.
(Consensus of alarmist scientists does not count.)
Thank you for your efforts. I have not only been entertained, but also put at ease, something which at this point in time is rare and precious.