An open letter to all political leaders currently fighting a General Election in the U.K. calling for an “ambitious” programme of green policies has been signed by 408 climate activists. The BBC refers to “the most distinguished of the country’s” climate scientists; Bob Ward, who organised the petition through the billionaire-funded Grantham operation, tweeted, “be ambitious on climate, scientists urge parties”, while James ‘the climate clock is ticking’ Murray from Business Green stepped up a gear by referring to “top scientists“. Scientists, you say? The first ‘scientist’ in the alphabetical list is an Associate Professor of Accounting, the second is a geographer specialising in “disaster risk reduction”, while the third is an archaeologist.
The green Grantham stunt is of course the latest in a long line of attempts to suggest that most ‘scientists’ believe humans control the climate. The letter refers to “growing damage to lives and livelihoods” in the U.K. caused by increases in the frequency and intensity of many extreme weather events. This evidence-lite but ubiquitous assertion is not even backed up by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which finds there has been no human involvement in most natural events such as floods, droughts, wildfires and cyclones to date. Nor is human involvement detected in forecasts stretching to 2100.
There are some academics who have signed the letter who can be fairly described as scientists, but the vast majority would struggle to justify such a title. The list is littered with lawyers, psychologists, philosophers, landscape designers, engineers and computer modellers. One interesting take from the letter is to note how many ways a university Geography Department can be renamed to capitalise on the climate zeitgeist. A similar ‘scientists’ stunt was pulled last month by Damian Carrington in the Guardian, who polled 400 so-called scientists and in an ocean of emotional guff concluded the world is heading towards a “semi dystopian” future. Signed up for both agitprop operations is Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, who is described as the Director for U.K. Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformation. A more enlightening CV might note that she is an “environmental psychologist” whose first degree was in theology and religious studies with French.
Perhaps Marco Silva, the BBC Verify climate ‘disinformation’ specialist, could cast a critical eye over the Ward letter when he returns at the end of the month from his six-month re-education sabbatical at the billionaire-funded Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN). One or two signing names might be familiar to him, including Saffron O’Neill, described as a Professor of “Climate and Society”. She is a past speaker at the OCJN and is noted for speculating on the need for “fines and imprisonment” for expressing scepticism about “well supported” science.
Would any scientist seriously sign up for such a policy knowing that it would destroy the ongoing scientific process? A process, it might be noted, that has served humanity so well, certainly since the time Pope Urban VIII played the ‘well supported’ argument and cut up rough with Galileo and his heretical view that the Earth orbited the Sun.
The Ward letter is a Grantham operation and is ultimately funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham. Two Grantham Institutes are funded at the London School of Economics and Imperial, where a computer model ‘attribution’ operation is used to garner headlines with implausible claims that humans have caused individual weather events. Investigate science journalist Ben Pile has tracked some of the major contributions made by Grantham up to 2021.

As well as significant sums paid to LSE and Imperial, there are major contributions dispersed to other green foundations that crop up all the time when there are global Net Zero collectivisation narratives to be spun in the media, politics and academia. Jeremy Grantham has a long track record of preaching about the coming apocalypse, asking a 2019 meeting in Copenhagen, “what should I do, you say?” He met his rhetorical question by advising:
You should lobby your Government officials – invest in an election and buy some politicians. I am happy to say we do quite a bit of that at the Grantham Foundation… any candidate as long as they are green.
Ward is employed by Grantham at LSE to “communicate” climate science, notes journalist Matt Ridley. For years he complained to the newspaper industry’s self-regulator IPSO about climate articles that took a sceptical line. It was part of a campaign of “sustained and deliberate” pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line, states Ridley. Ward tied journalists down in a time-consuming process in the hope it deterred them and their editors from writing and commissioning work. It worked, observed Ridley, noting, “he has frightened away some journalists and editors from the vital topic of climate change, leaving the catastrophists with a clear field to scare children to their heart’s content”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Most Engineers are scientists
Capital E, no capital S? What kind of semantic game are you pulling out of your hat?
David,
few scientists are engineers however but that doesn’t stop them making engineering statements that are rarely correct.
I have to keep reminding my wife that Doctors are not gods. They’re human, and they’re fallible. You must carefully analyze all that they say and recommend. The same goes for Scientists and Engineers.
Scientist can get away with it, but Engineers have to be a bit more careful since their jobs usually depend on not making mistakes.
Scientist can get away with mistakes, but Engineers tend to be sued and loose licenses when they don’t get things right.
Boeing 737 max being the perfect example??
A perfect storm of software engineers, a/c engineers and bean counters.
Luckily the scientists didn’t even get in the door – never mind when bits of the aircraft blew out, fell off or were picked up after falling out of the sky!
Few scientists are engineers. However, that doesn’t stop them making engineering statements that are rarely correct.
Not really/ Most engineers use a little science, but their goals are entirely different.
The end result of an engineers efforts is a machine that works. The end result of a scientists efforts is a hypothesis that can be falsified, but isn’t.
Pseudo scientists and engineers produces things that look like they ought to work, but in fact do not.
Thank you for clearing up the difference between scientists and engineers. In a few words, no less. Well done.
I couldn’t disagree more . . . in general, engineers use a LOT of “science”, including physics, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, hydraulics and hydrodynamics, properties of materials, chemistry, kinetic and kinematic mechanics, electronics and electrodynamics, etc., etc. Sure, not every engineer each and every one of these speciality fields, but as a whole, yes.
As you noted, the results of an engineer’s efforts is a machine that works. So look around you at all the “machines” (including electric/electronic ones) that you encounter each and every day and just try to imagine them being invented, designed, manufactured and powered without the benefit of science.
yes but as I just said, lots of engineers and scientists often produce things which are NEVER designed to work….they call it pure research eg. super phoenix or JET.
All of which have cost fortunes.
Indeed when the scientists and engineers get together they usually combine forces to spend vast sums of other people’s money entirely in gross futility exercises.
Hmmmm . . . that doesn’t appear to be happening in my world, which has a blue sky and one orbiting Moon. And which is a near-sphere and NOT flat.
A scientist and an engineer are placed in a long hallway, with a beautiful woman placed exactly halfway between them.
They are told that each time the bell rings, they can move halfway to the woman.
The bell rings, the engineer moves and the scientist doesn’t.
The bell rings again, the engineer moves and the scientist still doesn’t.
The bell rings a third time and the results are the same.
The engineer calls out to the scientist to ask, why aren’t you moving.
The scientist replies that since they can only move halfway each time, they will never be able to reach the woman.
The engineer replies, that is true, however eventually I will be close enough to the woman that the difference will no longer matter.
I guess God must have had engineering thoughts when he created the woman… I mean, who else would put a sewage drain through the middle of a recreational area…
Does that same claim not apply to men?
Duh.
Most scientists are not in teaching or research. The vast majority of scientists employ their disciplines in real world jobs that have real world consequences, as do engineers. Academic scientists and some academic engineers live in the rarified world of pay to play, where the prevailing political narrative coerces many to bend the knee to climatism, genderism, wokism, and every other post-modern -ism. The best, most promising scientific researchers who have any sense of morals or ethics quickly learn that they must go elsewhere to work to maintain their integrity.
Doesn’t mean they understand the climate. And they’re not scientists- though they studied science.
They understand a lot more than ‘an “environmental psychologist” whose first degree was in theology and religious studies with French’
and enough to know the nut zero solutions are not going to work.
Net zero requires replacing all the fossil fuel energy sources with something that doesn’t emit CO2, like nuclear, or reducing our energy use and population levels to cave man levels. The amount of non-CO2 emitting energy sources required to be brought on line, every day from now until 2050, to accomplish the first option is staggering and impossible. So I guess it’s back to the caves, man.
“… like nuclear, …”
Hahaha ha ha … you’re funny. As if a single climate charlatan would allow nuclear …
Germany is succeeding in all those aims remarkably well.
They reduce population by having nowhere near enough children* then realise nobody is left to pay retirement pensions, then elect loads of AFD (and will be RN in France) to stop the vital import of foreign workers to replace the oldies….
…Then get a load of greenies to lie about nuclear so that they close it all down.
All that’s left is to elect another bloke with a little moustache from Austria and Germany will have arrived at “nut zero” again.
They go this way in Italy with great success, no foreigners and the “sieg heil” raising the one armed salute in lots of Italian cities.
“*No people no problem” Jolly Joe stuff comes back.
Agreed- and I didn’t mean to imply that they can’t understand the climate- many do, some do not. I presume an electrical engineer isn’t likely to be on top of climate “science” but a civil engineer probably would easily pick it up. Engineers are far more likely to grasp the topic than social scientists- if they bother to think about it.
Part of the process to get an engineering degree involves studying physics. Once you are exposed to physics, you realize how many different branches of science are interlinked.
As an example, mechanical engineering students are given a problem with a weight suspended by a spring. They have to plot the movement of the weight given initial conditions and spring characteristics.
The equations to solve this exercise are virtually identical to an electrical engineering student plotting the output of a tank circuit (an inductor in parallel with a capacitor).
You cannot be a good engineer without having a well rounded understanding of multiple branches of science.
As I recently told an intern, engineers take theory and turn it into reality. How well it works determines how good you are as an engineer.
Ruinables don’t work well not matter how advanced their designs because they start out with a poor theory. They are basically polishing a turd.
At the same time, please don’t presume any engineer having a professional career in one chosen specialty field won’t at the same time have outside/personal interests in other areas, such as a keen interest in climate science.
I know whereof I speak.
Right, I’m only a forester with not much physics and chemistry in forestry school- but I can read this site and watch YouTube videos explaining the skeptical view- which makes more sense than the alarmist view. And, I’ve now read quite a few books- my favorite is Unsettled.
Scientists wedged themselves into the engineering profession during the golden years of space exploration because of the glamour. E.g, there is no such thing as a rocket scientist… that would be a rocket engineer! And the invention of the term STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics was to dilute engineering down ( Engineering is Applied Science, Technology is the product produced by engineers, not scientists, math is a tool used by engineers, scientists and pure mathematicians and others).
Also, economics constrains engineering design. The reason there is so much Rube Goldberg pseudo engineering in in green spheres, like renewable grids that are impossible to make work at a cost that society can afford, is because of fairy scientific hopeful “We will have timely breakthroughs to fix that or bring down costs, meanwhile let’s build a renewable grid while we are waiting”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine
According to the online dictionary Oxford Languages, a scientist is defined as:
“a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences”
Therefore, there is no reason a scientist cannot have a career as an engineer, nor that an engineer has to be necessarily classified separately from being a scientist.
Most don’t realize that engineers constrain design of their output (technology products) with economics and practicality. This chasm divides scientists from engineers. You missed my point entirely about the difference. My mention of Rube Goldberg devices with respect to climate science “solutions” make that point.
Imagine if the Wright Brothers were to have designed their first powered flying machine and after the first trial fight of a few hundred feet, adamantly (say for some kooky ideological reason) insisted on going with the first design, turning their attention to add on patches to make it work at any price. Well, Rube would have no problem with using a dirigible to hold it up!
Most realize that scientists generally constrain their output (scientific theories, speculations and published papers) with the practicality of being compatible with existing scientific knowledge.
My apologies if I “missed your point entirely” regarding your earlier posts.
Interestingly, the top comment on the BBC’s comments page endorses Farage
From the comments:
And yet the BBC removed my comment “You first” aimed at someone advocating population reduction.
You komment at the BBC?
Why subject yourself to censorship and correct think?
Someone has to correct the mindless
Or, at least, attempt to correct them.
Well, I was shown the door in 2003.
So, it’s over to you guys.
The fact that they are openly discussing arresting and otherwise “taking care” of those who oppose them, is scary.
With no 2nd amendment, Britons will make easy victims.
BTW, I haven’t reported the comment, because I want people to see how deranged these people are
They “took care” of everyone during the covid scam.
Plod even took drones to follow people “illegally” walking their dogs far from anyone, and the Welsh tried to get plod to enforce Offa’s dyke.
Once Plod is told to do, Plod does, even when Plod gets it wrong and locks innocent people up, Plod always finds a way to lie his way back out of trouble.
Been there, done that, got locked up, seen the movie, got the DVD!
Plod once gets his little bit of power NEVER gives up, even when brainless liar Johnson out-lied them.
remember this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3560552/PETER-OBORNE-Corruption-27-years-lies-Hillsborough-destroyed-faith-police.html
The modern climate modeling fraud started with Manabe and Wetherald in 1967. They claimed an increase in ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ of 2.9 °C for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm. There were three main errors in this paper:
1) They used a steady state air column and forced the model to equilibrium
2) They imposed a fixed relative humidity distribution that created a water vapor feedback
3) They used a time integration algorithm on a CO2 warming signal that does not accumulate over time.
These errors were never corrected and provided the foundation for the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity that is still used in the climate models today.
Later as computer technology improved, the original 1-D steady state models were replaced by atmospheric GCMs and then by coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs. Starting with the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, the radiative forcings were split into ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ contributions. A dubious statistical argument was used to claim that the anthropogenic forcing could cause an increase in ‘extreme weather’. This provided the argument for Net Zero. Little has changed since 2001.
Manabe got part of the 2021 Nobel Prize for climate modeling fraud.
I have discussed this fraud in detail in the recent paper ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’ published in the open access on-line journal Science of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73 (2024) https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
This may help counter some of the lies and propaganda from Grantham.
Really good take-down of all climate models.
FAKE from the very start !!
Using GOOGLE, search for “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”
This is the website of the late John Daly.
From the home page, scroll down to the near end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the world map, click on “North America”, then click on “Western North America”, and finally click on
“Death Valley”
The graph shows the average annual seasonal temperatures to 2003. The plots of the seasonal temperatures are fairly flat. This means that CO2 did not cause any heating of air at least to 2003.
Next click on “Australia”, then click on “Alice Springs”. The plot of the average annual temperatures is fairly constant since 1879.
There are many weather stations from all over the world that showed little temperature change
up to 2003. Unfortunately, John Daly died in 2004.
It would be of interest to examine the temperature data of Death Valley from 2004 to present to see if temperatures for the seasons have undergone any change. Death Valley has low humidity and few clouds and any effect on temperature would be small. Hopefully, any effect of CO2 on the
seasonal temperatures could be determined.
This you?
https://www.google.com/search?q=roy+clark+plays+malaguena&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:c9a1a4d7,vid:Zkf-i9uYFEM,st:0
That Roy Clark {died 2018} was highly regarded and renowned as a guitarist, banjo player, and fiddler. He was skilled in the traditions of many genres, including classical guitar, country music, Latin music, bluegrass, and pop.
Bob (fast fingers) Ward. Always first to denigrate genuine independent scientists. Bob Ward is also a failed scientist (although you won’t find this fact at Wkipedia).
And neither will Wikipedia tell you that before that he was sacked as the drummer from an early incarnation of Dexys Midnight Runners.
More generally known as Bob (Mediocre) Ward.
“Bob Ward”? Sounds like a gameshow host…
Yet nowhere near as talented or even interesting.
The same BBC that no platforms any argument against its climate agenda obsession. What’s bad for universities…Martin Luther and Galileo ran into the same sort of authoritarianism.
If Galileo’s conflict with Urban VIII and the Church had been strictly about his astronomy work, he would likely have walked. Several of the Vatican’s own astronomers at the time were warming to the heliocentric model and could have went to bat for him.
What really raised the Pope’s eyebrow were Galileo’s less academic publications that advocated for some highly unorthodox religious ideas. And his publishing of a philosophical dialogue which openly insulted Urban VIII didn’t help his case, either.
The Galileo story is more complicated and nuanced than the anti-censorship morality tale it’s often portrayed as.
Galileo was not put to death. In contrast, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake (+ other gross punishments) on February 17th, 1600.
Nobody cares about the weather – besides, there’s an election coming up
From the article: “It was part of a campaign of “sustained and deliberate” pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line”
I bet there is a lot of this going on.
Billionaires paying for a specific narrative.
Billionaires distorting reality and causing a lot of harm in the process.
Tom here in Australia it seems that a handful of billionaires are calling the shots in regards to government policy. Simon Holmes-a-Court, an Australian billionaire and renewables developer influenced Engineers Australia to cancel the webinar for 400 people of Rob Parker. Mr Parker has a Masters in Nuclear Science and Civil Engineering and his address was titled “Avoiding an energy blunder Down Under”. Engineers Australia cancelled the webinar stating that the speaker was unwell which was absolutely untrue. He himself had not even been informed of its cancellation and was waiting at the appointed time.
Holmes-a-Court also funded the political careers of a number of women in Australia who are called the Teals. They ran as and are accepted as being Independents. They all ran on the platform of climate and are effectively his marketing team.
Where I don’t agree with Mr Parker’s stance on climate, I do agree that Australia must go down the path of nuclear. Even with Mr Parker agreeing with the stance on AGW they did not want him to give his talk.
Australia, in its insanity, is the only country in the world pushing to run entirely on wind and solar with mostly battery backup. This incident is a prime example of just who’s running the country. God help us.
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/cancelled-nuclear-talk-enrages-politicians-and-engineers-20240614-p5jlpx
“This incident is a prime example of just who’s running the country. God help us.”
Thanks for all the good information, megs. I think politically-active billionaires are a great danger to the freedoms of all of us in the Western World.
An act of political desperation. They lust for power. No science involved at all.
Once again, money is proven the motivator behind the “climate…” whatever it is. Oh, and power. I seem to remember a book back in my youth “If you see the Buddha on the road….”. Or something like that. Perhaps, someone needs to write a book regarding “greenies” and how to deal with them. Although I think that is becoming increasingly clear everyday we see their antics. Just sayin’.
Two thoughts:
1: re– geography
I have known a lot of geography graduates during the past 60 years. Close to 97.97% (or more) do not have the math, physics, and chemistry skills to claim “climate science” skills; and
2: 408 climate activists
To paraphrase a well-regarded scientist: If they are right, they would not need 408 signatories. One fact would do.
BBC sells it as 408 climate scientists. They democratize the climate science – anybody can be a climate scientist. Same approach as with “gender”, anybody can be a trans-man or a trans-woman, biology be damned, it only assigns you one gender at birth.
“anybody can be a climate scientist” if they “believe” and are not “Deniers!”. Their hearts must be pure (even if their minds are befuddled.)
The alarmists keep claiming that severe weather events are increasing.
However the real world still refuses to cooperate and is still keeping these events hidden from sight.
Nice report. The Green Election Letter is nothing more than an appeal to authority and a mighty pitiful one at that. The CAGW crowd has nothing, this pitiful show is proof of that. If they had any proper science to back their claims it would be plastered all over the mainstream media 24/7. That’s why this isn’t a science problem or a climate problem It is wholly a government problem. Government is the only weapon they have, get the government out of the picture and the whole issue simply disappears.
Chris Morrison expertly ridicules the idea that accountants and architects have any special expertise when it comes to matters of science. Perhaps he might apply the same rigour to matters of history. So, when he says:
“Would any scientist seriously sign up for such a policy knowing that it would destroy the ongoing scientific process? A process, it might be noted, that has served humanity so well, certainly since the time Pope Urban VIII played the ‘well supported’ argument and cut up rough with Galileo and his heretical view that the Earth orbited the Sun”, perhaps it might be well to ask for his credentials to speak on matters of history.
Are you suggesting that Galileo was not persecuted? A gilded cage is still a cage. He lost the right to travel without permission and was under the observation of papal authorities. He was not allowed to speak further of Copernican theory as he treated it too much as fact.
Shame on the psychologists for buying into group think.
Shame on the accountants for buying into disastrous economic decisions based on delusion.
Landscape designers? They have no base of knowledge that would protect them from fashionable thinking.
Google “BBC” and “Clintel Climate Declaration” signed by 1931 many who are engineers and experts in the various sciences that help explain various aspects of climate and you will find nothing. The BBC is totally dishonest when it comes to climate.
see
https://clintel.org/willie-soon-replies-to-the-bbc-about-climate-science-its-biases-and-about-funding/