Essay by Eric Worrall
Would a society where climate dishonesty is unacceptable deter climate skeptics?
Why the ‘Me Too’ movement should be a warning to those lying about climate change
In his latest book, author and academic Mike Berners-Lee calls for a ‘climate of truth’ from business, politicians and the media
At a glance
- Author and academic Mike Mike Berners-Lee believes dishonesty about climate change and other challenges facing the world is behind the lack of progress in reducing emissions and tackling wider problems such as pollution and nature loss
- He insists change is possible, but calls on everyone to be more truthful, and to call out the media, business and policymakers when they are being dishonest
- Regulation, in conjunction with high penalties and strict enforcement, is necessary to ensure business is delivering on environmental stewardship, he says
“A couple of decades ago, it was considered pretty normal by many celebrities that every now and then a bit of groping went on,” Mike Berners-Lee tells me. “Now, it is pretty clear to every BBC personality it would be the end of your career — and if you were found to have stood by while someone else was getting up to it, you would also be in very hot water.”
…Berners-Lee’s latest book, A Climate of Truth, concludes that central to our inability to get to grips with the “deadly polycrisis” we are in — one that includes climate change, biodiversity loss, food security concerns and permanent pollution — is a pervasive lack of truthfulness from policymakers, business and the media.
…
He cites the greenhouse gas emissions curve, which shows that despite 29 climate change COPs and a 30th in the offing, emissions continue to rise. “This is a reality we need to face up to: the process isn’t working. The best thing that came out of COP29 is the understanding that the process is broken.” It is also being “subverted by companies that can’t be trusted”, he adds.
…
Read more: https://www.sustainableviews.com/why-the-me-too-movement-should-be-a-warning-to-those-lying-about-climate-change-c781857f/
Mike Berners-Lee wrote “There is no Planet B” and a bunch of other climate crisis books, so I think its fair to describe him as a bit of a fixture in the radical environmental movement.
But the fact is the truth is already coming out about climate change.
Reuters recently admitted Net Zero is a failure.
Climate alarmism has also been exposed by an entire year of temperatures greater than 1.5C without any of the predicted major climate disasters.
Silicon Valley has all but stopped pretending to care about climate change.
Despite all this, I am not accusing Mike Berners-Lee of being a liar. Reading Climategate convinced me climate radicals actually believe what they are preaching.
The problem is not that they are lying, the problem is they are wrong.
One of Freeman Dyson’s great disappointments was his political fellow travellers are caught up in climate groupthink. Dyson described seeing this kind of baseless groupthink many times in the past, mostly amongst the Astronomy community. It happens when scientists fall too much in love with their models, and begin confusing models with established fact.
Given the world has now experienced 1.5C warming without any of the predicted disasters, at least no more than usual, will academics like Mike Berners-Lee find the courage to admit they were wrong? You might think the answer is an automatic never, but we have had at least one example of a high profile academic who had the courage to face the truth.
By the mid 2030s it won’t matter what climate alarmists say or believe, the world will have moved on. Climate alarmism has all but run its course, many new voices are now casting doubt on the most extreme climate predictions. But a decade of continued high energy price misery is a long time to wait for people struggling to pay their energy bills.
Every academic who adds their voice to climate skepticism will help shorten the suffering of those still trapped in societies where climate alarmism dominates government policy.
Let us hope Mike Berners-Lee and his fellow academics take inspiration from James Lovelock, and find the courage to admit they were wrong.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A nice ‘hope’, but not gonna happen. Too many careers and too much money involved.
We just gotta keep applying the old Roman Latin strategy “illegitimaie noncarborundum”. Or, as I learned in high school, ‘grind the bastards down’.
As noted today, the judge reduced the Mann judgement from $1m to $5k.
Also worth noting, Mann perjured himself 200+ times in the course of litigation, in the court filings, testimony, interogatories, etc.
Can you trust his scientific work or his professional ethics when you have a serial liar?
Don’t let the bastards grind you down!!!
Actually I disagree, Rud. Warmunism is on its last gasp already. Most people have already come to the conclusion that it’s a made up scam. Evidence? Polling that virtually always show climate change at the very bottom of lists of issues … the re-election of Trump on an anti-warmunism/pro energy/anti-government subsidy platform, and the collapse of the Euro economies like Germany and UK that went all in on net zero.
Net zero is not just a pejorative amongst us anti-warnunists any more. It’s a joke for most people today.
Now this does not mean that the communist/enviros (“watermelon environmentalists”) are going to ever give up their quest to destroy capitalism and reduce us all to mindless serfs. That is a forever thing. But they will now have to find some other excuse to flog to try and convince humans to act against our own obvious interests.
The brother of Tim who stole the idea of the World Wide Web from big Al.
Meanwhile, easiest solution in the world for the enviro-zealots to expose where all the disinformation is (deliberate lies or otherwise) — they can buy a mirror.
So of course Mike Berners-Lee will demand Michael Mann retract MBH98, which aside from being cherry picked to a fare thee well, also has an algorithm that produces hockey sticks from red noise?
I expect that shortly after genetic engineering produces flying pigs.
Bill Nye says that Musk wants to shut down NOAA so that he can privatize and take over their business.
That Musk dude must be a genius.
He can transform Starlink communications satellites that send out radio signals, into high resolution image gathering platforms working in both the visible wavelengths and the infrared wavelengths!
Nye is claiming that based on NOAA software quality and satellites since he was a kid that hurricane predictions have gone from 60 or 70 nautical miles down to 5 or 6 which seems to be a real ‘stretch.’ Great improvements are true but the ones I follow lately don’t seem to get that accurate until get they pretty close since estimates obviously need timed offshore locations.
Yes and that 5 or 6 nautical mile accuracy is 2 days after landfall……
I’ve forgotten the quote, but it’s about not trusting grown men who wear bow ties.
No need to privatize it. Just shut it down. There are already private organizations that produce superior products.
The truth is that there is no climate crisis either now or impending. That is the “me too” movement that is needed and may be now underway. The truth always wins. It is always the “last man standing”
But sometimes it takes a long while. Earth centric solar system, phlogiston theory of combustion, luminiferous aether light propagation, and humors caused disease all hung around for a very long time. It took Galileo, Lavoisier, Michelson-Morley, and a combination of Semmelweis (puperal fever) and Snow (London cholera) to respectively definitively refute them.
Unfortunately, no such definitive scientific refutation will ever be possible for climate alarm. CO2 was proven a GHG by Tyndall in 1859. Significant impact in an enormously complex nonlinear dynamic system cannot be definition be definitively refuted.
I think two positive ‘truth’ things are slowly happening anyway.
I think you’re correct since the science I read seems to move slower than justice, exceptions of course. The question may be that the old saying about the older generation has to die off first may not be so true here, exceptions of course. This one still seems to like “turnover rates.” Metcalfe, N. B. 1995. Serious bias in journal impact factors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10(11):461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89182-X
“CO2 was proven a GHG by Tyndall in 1859″
NO !!!
Tyndall proved that CO2 was a radiatively active gas.
He made absolutely zero measurements in the atmosphere.
So he had zero proof of any affect in the atmosphere.
The term “GHG” is a totally unscientific made-up terminology.
Spot on.
‘The term “GHG” is a totally unscientific made-up terminology.’
It wasn’t always so, but the original, rigorous scientific definition has been degraded into half-baked mush that’s nevertheless suitable for transmission in a single soundbite in the mainstream media, so that’s the definition in current usage in the public discourse today despite its being a scientific and linguistic travesty.
The difference between the original definition and the one in current popular usage was illustrated by a couple of exchanges that I had with Microsoft’s AI ‘companion’ Copilot today. They went as follows (my underlining added):
Me: Hi Copilot! Could you please give me Sir John Houghton’s definition of greenhouse gases?
Copilot: Sir John Houghton, a prominent climate scientist, has extensively discussed greenhouse gases in his works. He defines greenhouse gases as those that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect. This effect is crucial for maintaining the Earth’s temperature, but an excess of these gases can lead to global warming and climate change.
If you’re interested in more details, you might want to check out his book, “Global Warming: The Complete Briefing”. It’s a comprehensive guide to understanding climate change and its impacts.
Me: Thanks, but that is not the definition I was thinking of. I distinctly remember seeing a quote of Sir John’s definition in Wikipedia some years ago in which he defined greenhouse gases in terms of two key-properties which they possess, namely relative transparency to incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun and relative opacity to outgoing longwave radiation from the surface and atmosphere. That definition seems now to have disappeared from the public discourse and to have been replaced by the one which you gave in your answer above.
Copilot: I understand your concern. Sir John Houghton’s definition of greenhouse gases, emphasizing their relative transparency to incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun and relative opacity to outgoing longwave radiation from the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, is indeed a more technical and precise explanation. This definition highlights the fundamental properties that make greenhouse gases effective in trapping heat and contributing to the greenhouse effect.
While this specific wording may not be as commonly found in recent public discourse, it remains a crucial aspect of understanding how greenhouse gases function. If you’re looking for more detailed and technical explanations, Sir John Houghton’s book “Global Warming: The Complete Briefing” is an excellent resource.
Just an interesting side note since you brought up actual science Tyndall, 1859) and long-held but ultimately debunked beliefs. Although Tyndall did impeccable science with what he had to work with at the time, he also accepted the luminiferous ether theory at that time. He called it “the dynamical theory of heat” and the vibrating or agitated ether.
Science can be really interesting when not being corrupted and used to push a political agenda.
Yes. Tyndall should be admired for his impeccable experimentation.
One can only wonder what he could have accomplished with modern technology to assist.
Thanks for the response. What really impressed me about Tyndall and his paper was how he thought out his experiments and either built the test apparatus himself or had others specially make his stuff. And if it didn’t work to his liking he tested until he found out what the problem was and changed designs or materials as needed until he got exactly what he wanted. Same goes for science and experimental scientists in general in that era.
No office reanalysis of other people’s garbage, made-up, adjusted and anomalized model results.
If you parse and dissect the Tyndall 1859 experiments you will find he did not determine a GHG. He demonstrated the relative Specific Heat Capacities in fixe Volume for a multitude of gasses. His demonstrated with water vapor showed water saturated air had the same effect as 100% CO2. Basically confirming Eunice Foot’s experiments from earlier in that decade.
The key? Thermo-electric pile as the detector with one side of the pile heated with steam. On the tube side, a funnel leading to the pile. The source? Boiling water.
Back then there was no clarity between “sensible heat” and “radiated heat.” Eunice Foot demonstrated that thermal energy (aka sensible heat) and electro-magnetic energy (light) were different.
Reminds me of a quote from my old cousin Ben. “A lie stands on one leg, truth on two.“
Mike Berners-Lee
Why is there a hyphen in his name? Step child? Is that hyphen-abuse?
Maybe a coincidence, but posh people who have posh beliefs often have posh surnames.
My observations agree. There really does seem to be a “type” with a hyphenated last name. Can’t imagine why, though.
There are people who give their children fused surnames, the mother’s hyphenated with the father’s.
We gave our kids both names but without the hyphen, although there have been times when a government function added it where it should not have.
Going south
Eric, you are far too kind to the likes of Berners-Lee. He is a professor a highly educated man, he is what you think of when someone refers to a book learner or book smart.He is likely capable of reading a complex book and understand what was written. Unfortunately he apparently lacks the capacity to critique what he reads and judge whether it makes any sense. He needs to become more of a critical thinker but like most he would benefit from a good kick in the backside to get his mind right.
The problem with books as well as documentaries is that the author/producer has complete control of the narrative. The author picks which facts to choose and which to ignore. The author picks which arguments to promote and which to ignore.
As such, it is a trivial task to “prove” anything, even things that are patently absurd.
‘The problem is not that they are lying, the problem is they are wrong.’
No. Everyone is wrong about something at sometime. The problem is their willingness to use force against anyone who disagrees with them.
did they pull Dr. roy spencer’s speculation?
oops. no they didn’t
“Reuters recently admitted Net Zero is a failure.”
Oooopsie, Reuters lying again on behalf of their masters. Net Zero has been an incredible success for the tax-farmers.
Paul Ehrlich hasn’t budged an inch. Neither has Jim Hansen.
René Blondlot went to his grave believing in N-Rays.
Socialism still reigns supremely desirable among many despite its factual history of mass murder, misery, and failure.
James Lovelock is exemplary in his uniqueness. The one man in 100 able to change his mind in a hotly contested arena.
I’d expect most of the AGW believers to likewise remain firm — going to their graves perhaps grumbling about the climate lag. That disaster’s a-comin’, but we didn’t anticipate the momentum of the climate. Believing that CO2 catastrophe is like the slow turn of a massive Titanic, but into the iceberg.
Great comment. I would have give you a second exemplary. Mike Moore, former Greenpeace founder.
Patrick (Moore), I think, but yes, a second exemplary.
Did Moore leave Greenpeace, or did Greenpeace leave Moore?
I don’t believe that Moore changed his positions much. It’s more that he couldn’t put up with the growing radicalization of the organization he helped to found.
I saw a video in which he reported that Greenpeace left him
Greenpeace also unpersoned him after his apostasy, and scrubbed him from their history, just as Stalin did to Trotsky. Communists never change.
From Patrick Moore’s April 22, 2008 Wall Street Journal article, it was Greenpeace’s anti-science attempt to get chlorine banned that was the last straw for him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Berners-Lee
eco-loon
The problem is not telling the whole truth, like
“strip-bark pines” here the name gives a hint already that it´s growth pattern might not
exclusively depend on temperature
CMIP5 and all older models got it wrong and CMIP6 might be better but there is no
guarantee they are correct. Schmidt et al. MUST speak out against all use of CMIP5 models
without proper adjustment of systematical errors (which invalidates any CMIP5 based
statement)
(Feb 2026) caused J. Baker to step up and set the record straight about the stability of the
Atlantic oscillation, how can you tell Rahmstorf does distort the truth…
track at all with observed correlations and causation..
These are just four prominent examples of climate alarmists, who sometimes choose to not tell the whole story and sometimes left out important facts and when they had knowledge and opportunity have chosen repeatedly NOT correct a distorted picture about climate science, Mike Berners-Lee here you have your lairs, who are to blame for this whole situation. They also had massive personal gain from their behavior, I cannot imagine a more unethical behavior!
A lie by omission is still a lie
Are they still even a thing??
Well, get the popcorn, in the comments J Barker makes an appearance insisting that his title and work are factual (as much as modeling can be I think)
“calls on everyone to be more truthful, and to call out the media, business and policymakers when they are being dishonest”
Unfortunately, they’ll usually just ignore such calls.
ummm- maybe I should have finished reading the article first before I wrote what’s above – what side is he on when he talks about people being dishonest?
My own crystal ball tells me alarmists will continue to lie. The only thing that will end the climate hoax is cooling. The good news is it may happen relatively soon. I think 2027 is a reasonable call.
By 2027 the effects of Hunga-Tonga should be mostly gone. That is also a reasonable year for the 60 year cycle (AMO) to flip into its cold phase. If these natural forces have been driving a reduction in clouds, which seems likely, the clouds should return.
The resulting cool off could be fairly quick and as a bonus, Arctic sea ice would start increasing. This would be almost impossible for the alarmists to explain, although they would try. However, with Trump still in office they would lack government support.
From the article: “Climate alarmism has also been exposed by an entire year of temperatures greater than 1.5C without any of the predicted major climate disasters.”
I’m not sure who said this, but I’ve seen the same claim at least once in the past, and the claim is not correct. The Earth has not experienced this “1.5C” temperature for 365 days in a row, as is implied. This temperature was reached once in the year and the temperatures have been cooling since that time.
Eric said that. I agree with you.
Big media talk about exceeding 1.5 C…..nothing about it dropping .5 C since then…
Cooling doesn’t fit their narrative.
The only viable remedy to false statements is true statements. Punishing “false” statements is not a slippery slope, it’s a cliff, into the depths of authoritarianism. This is true (pun intended) whether you are on the “consensus” or “skeptical” side of any issue. I would no more argue for the suppression of climate alarmist speech than I would for the suppression of skeptical speech. Though it would please me if my tax dollars were not being used to wage psychological warfare on my family and fellow citizens.
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
But, who can truly determine what is true and what is false, to make the claim of possession of ultimate truth is to claim divinity. We are now, in the West (outside of the US, at least while Trump holds the Whitehouse) in the midst of a mad push for government censorship of practically any opinion that does not comport with the ideology held by the technocratic bureaucracy. People are sent to prison in the UK for tweets, or even for silently praying, memes will get you arrested in Germany, Australia has passed “hate speech” laws, etc. This rapid lurch towards authoritarianism will not stop at speech that is “objectively offensive”, it never does. The only solution to it is the robust protection of free speech, as was held up in the United States for many years, though even that is waning somewhat of late. Offensive speech, that which the listener does not agree with, requires the most protection. Because inoffensive speech, by its very nature, requires no protection at all, and the very categoisation of something as “offensive” is entirely subjective. Offense may be taken, but never given.
A “Me Too” movement in science would be an outright attack on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not important, it is absolutely fundamental to a society in which any human dignity is valued.
Agree. Of course, intellectual and academic authoritarianism has been around forever. The Church in the 1600’s put Galileo under house arrest and banned his scholarship for life for thinking that the earth revolved around the sun. So today, governments and universities worldwide label as blasphemy the idea that climate change and modern warming is entirely natural and independent of CO2.
Good comment, Mark. Your last sentence is especially important.
From the article: “Climate alarmism has all but run its course, many new voices are now casting doubt on the most extreme climate predictions.”
This is true. New voices, speaking up! I love it!
I think there will be more new voices speaking up as time goes along.
A lot of young people are starting to question the narrative. And they won’t just question one narrative, they will question all of them. That’s good! That’s very good! 🙂
Story Tip
Really nice data extraction program for USHCN.
This guys knows his programming !! 😉
Measuring The Heat | Real Climate Science
Dyson was very critical of climate models not being holistic at all. Even if they could forecast the future temperature correctly they can’t tell what is going to happen to the biosphere. It is the doom-sayers that tack on the opinion that a temperature rise is dangerous to the human race. All of the doom predictions, starving polar bears, massive harvest failures leading to mass starvation, coastal cities being innundated by rising seas, etc. are OPINIONS, not facts. The proof of that is in the fact that none of them has happened and they are always predicted to be ten years down the road!
Temperature is not climate. The fact that hardiness zones, at least in the US, have not changed significantly for the past thirty years is proof of that. The US is large enough that a dangerous global climate change would have been noticed in agronomy somewhere in the US. The US is *not* a system separate from the rest of the globe.
All climate science has to do to fix this whole charade is to stand up and say “temperature is not climate”.
Leftists always resort to edicts when they can’t succeed by honest persuasion.
It feels strange agreeing whole-heartedly with averything he is reported as saying, while disagreeing vehementky wirh everything he means by it.
My thoughts precisely
I nominate Michael Mann and James Hansen.
#ClimateLiarsToo
Simply not true.
The BBC still accommodates journalists who lie about their experience on their CVs, the relationship of Gaza children to Hamas leaders, and who knows what else.
Only when BBC staffers get caught out does the BBC do anything about it with the usual “we’re sorry” BS.
The BBC are only sorry because they were caught out in their lies.
Proof that the UK, USA, EU and all other countries that have slashed their CO2 emissions and wasted trillions of £/$/€ haven’t made a blind bit of difference to the weather.