
A tale of Guardianista Land…where everyone was equal. (But, some more equal than others) https://camera-uk.org/2011/01/24/a-tale-of-guardianista-land-where-everyone-was-equal-but-some-more-equal-than-others/
Once again, Fiona Harvey, the Guardian’s Environment Editor-cum-resident climate evangelist, has taken to the pages of her paper to deliver a sermon on the supposed settled science of climate change. In her latest missive, she trumpets the pronouncements of André Corrêa do Lago, Brazil’s diplomat who will preside over the United Nations climate summit (30th Conference of the Parties or COP30) in November this year.
Ms Harvey claims that “climate denialism” has been defeated by the weight of “scientific consensus” and now the deniers are resorting to the argument that climate policies cannot shift the global economy to a low-carbon future. Thus, according to Corrêa do Lago: “It is not possible to have [scientific] denialism at this stage, after everything that has happened in recent years. So there is a migration from scientific denial to a denial that economic measures against climate change can be good for the economy and for people.”
Ms Harvey, steeped in the familiar dogma of climate alarmism, reels off the usual tropes: “As the climate crisis has gathered pace, temperatures have risen and the effects of extreme weather have become more obvious, scientists have been able to draw ever more clearly the links between greenhouse gas emissions and our impacts on the planet.”
The new twist to the climate alarmist narrative pushed by her in her interview of Corrêa do Lago is that we are now witnessing the last gasp of a defeated ideology of climate denialism. The denial of scientific consensus in now replaced by the denial of enlightened climate policies which would bring the avoidance of impending environmental catastrophe while promoting resilient economic growth. In his exclusive interview with the Guardian, the Brazilian diplomat asserts that this “economic denial” could be just as dangerous and cause as much delay as repeated attempts to deny climate science in previous years.
But the Science is Not Settled…
In Ms Harvey’s universe – occupied by the likes of Corrêa do Lago, Greenpeace and the UK’s very own ‘Mad Ed’, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero – the science is settled, the energy transition is an imperative and decarbonisation will not only save the planet from an impending environmental catastrophe but also bring about economic growth and prosperity. Harvey’s article hinges on the tired assertion that the science of climate change is settled, with a ‘97% consensus’ among scientists that human activity drives catastrophic global warming. This figure, derived from John Cook’s 2013 study, has been debunked repeatedly for its methodological flaws — most notably by scholars like David Legates, who found that only a tiny fraction of the studied papers explicitly endorsed the catastrophic narrative.
William Happer, a Princeton physicist, has demonstrated that CO2’s warming effect is logarithmic, diminishing with increased concentration, and that current levels are far from catastrophic. Judith Curry, a former Georgia Tech climatologist, has meticulously documented the uncertainties in climate models, particularly their overreliance on assumptions about positive feedback loops. Nobel laureate John Clauser has called the climate crisis narrative “pseudoscience”, arguing that it ignores fundamental principles of physics. These are not fringe voices but eminent scientists whose peer-reviewed work is grounded in observable evidence, not ideological fervour.
The ‘settled science’ that Ms Harvey and Mr Corrêa do Lago take for granted is an oxymoron, as Michael Crichton reminded his audience at the California Institute of Technology in 2003: “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
But perhaps the most careful recent look at ‘settled science’ has been by Steve Koonin in his book Unsettled, where he marshals scientific facts supported by hard data and the peer-reviewed literature that stand against the reigning climate change narrative. He finds that the rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated; humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century; tornado frequency and severity are not trending up; Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was 80 years ago; the number and severity of droughts are not rising over time; the extent of global fires has been trending significantly downwards; global crop yields are rising, not falling; the net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century even if global average temperatures rise by 3°C, which is double the Paris Agreement goal.
…And Climate Policies have brought Widespread Misery and Pushback
Corrêa do Lago, we are informed, wants to spur a new global effort to persuade people that remodelling the economy away from a reliance on fossil fuels and towards a clean energy future will reap benefits for all people. “It’s the turn of those who believe in the fight against climate change to show and to prove that fighting climate change is possible, and that it can come with economic advantages and with a better quality of life.”
In preparing for the gabfests that the annual UN climate summits have become known for, Mr. Corrêa do Lago blames the deniers for the “concerted attack on the idea that the economy can be reorganised to fight the [climate] crisis”. In attempting to gather 196 countries to pursue the kind of climate policies that support the globalist agenda touted by the likes of the Guardian, Corrêa do Lago lays blame on “the new populism” that is trying to show climate policies of decarbonisation do not work.
Among these “new populists”, of course, President Donald Trump looms large, calling the UN-touted global climate policies as the “Green New Scam”, pulling the US out of the 2015 Paris Agreement and putting the final nail in the coffin of the global climate agenda. Ms Harvey rues what she calls the “geopolitical headwinds” facing COP30, with the Trump administration having “emboldened countries that wish to derail progress”. Among what she calls the “possible mischief makers”, she lists “Saudi Arabia, Russia, Argentina, Venezuela and a host of other countries, including petrostates and populist-leaning governments”.
Previous UN climate jamborees have seen the promises of Net Zero collide with the hard realities of rapidly expanding energy demand especially in the developing world. For instance, Dr Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the COP28 climate summit, said pointedly in response to questions from a UN special envoy for climate change: “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5°C.” He further said off-camera in an interview that: “You’re asking for a phase-out of fossil fuels… Please, help me, show me for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”
Neither Ms Harvey nor Mr Corrêa do Lago seems to be aware, or willing to admit an awareness, of the widespread reaction in Western Europe against the depredations of punitive climate policies that have escalated the cost-of-living crisis here. The rise of conservative-populist parties in Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, France, Germany and the UK is at least in part explained by the sheer economic immiseration among working and middle class households caused by high energy and electricity prices. The modern Western barbarism of an enforced energy starvation diet is being exposed and increasingly challenged not only in the US under the Trumpian counter-revolution but increasingly in other parts of the world as well, from Argentina to New Zealand.
The recent blackouts in the Iberian Peninsula further expose the folly of over-reliance on renewables. Spain and Portugal suffered massive blackouts – Western Europe’s worst in post-war history – due to insufficient grid inertia. This was a direct result of prioritising wind and solar over dispatchable sources like coal, gas and hydropower. As reported by the Telegraph, the Spanish socialist Government was probing how far it could push reliance on renewables in preparation for the country’s rushed phase-out of nuclear reactors from 2027.
To add further to the folly of the ‘energy transition’ proponents such as Ms Harvey and Mr Corrêa do Lago, the recent IEA report underscores the surging electricity demand from AI data centres, projecting a doubling of global power needs by 2030. Europe’s climate policies, which reduce reliable dispatchable power, are spectacularly ill-timed, leaving the continent unprepared for this technological shift.
The Guardian Preaching to the Choir
Fiona Harvey’s article is not journalism but propaganda, a paean to the climate cult that mistakes consensus for truth. COP30, like its predecessors over the past three decades, will likely produce more platitudes than actionable results. The real desperation lies not with sceptics but with those who cling to a narrative unsupported by physics, economics or data. The climate crisis is a construct of ideology, not science. It’s time for the Guardian to abandon its dogmatic crusade and engage with the evidence, as unlikely as that would be. Until then, Ms Harvey’s sermons will remain just that — preaching to the choir.
This article was first published in the Daily Sceptic (https://dailysceptic.org/2025/06/03/the-guardians-climate-cult-fiona-harveys-latest-sermon-on-cop30/)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

It appears that it is Fiona who is in denial.
COP30 will be interesting because we will find out who actually bothers to attend, now that a large chunk of the money has disappeared. In particular I am curious to see how large the Nigerian delegation will be this time around, with the ladies residing in Rio of course – for the shops – and whether the well-fed matron will again make monetary demands like last time. As they say: it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
The science is overwhelming: the Climate Optimum we are presently enjoying is not man-made (not anthropogenic). We are quite fortunate that we were born in this brief ‘inter-glacial’, the Holocene, within the multi-million year Pleistocene Ice Age. Of course it isn’t just ‘luck’ that we were born now. life has always flourished during the warm interglacial periods. It is simply lucky that humanity is surviving the glaciations.
The proofs that the present inter-glacial climate optimum is not man-made are numerous. A number of good ones are summarized in this article. More can be found with little effort. Remember Einstein’s point that science only needs one. It’s a shame they aren’t taught to all of the next generation of leaders.
What is science anyway that a degenerate upon whim might avow or disavow?
Ms Harvey claims that “climate denialism” has been defeated by the weight of “scientific consensus”
Based on all the polls I’ve seen, it seems that climate alarmism is being defeated by the weight of scientific evidence. Funny how evidence continues to outwit consensus throughout history. I wonder if Harvey and her compatriots realize they are the Roman Inquisitors in opposition to Galileo and his heliocentric astronomers in this tragicomic performance, zealously promoting a religious orthodoxy that rejects the overwhelming weight of evidence.
We are witnessing the last, desperate, dying gasps of what Richard Feynman would call “Cargo Cult Science”. At this point, they are just going through the motions, and grasping at straws.
The Climate Alarmists are losing the argument while claiming they are winning.
This is called denying reality. Climate Alarmists are the real deniers.
That graph makes it clear why CO2 levels are rising – it’s all those people jetting around the world over the past 30 years to attend these stupid conferences. There’s a direct correlation!
Yes they are.
They deny the Earth’s climate history.
They deny human history.
They deny the obvious implications of physical evidence of prior warm periods.
They deny that their pet bullshit story is supported by NO empirical evidence.
They deny that the weather is NOT getting worse as the climate gets warmer.
Oops that was a response to Tom Abbot.
Fiona Harvey (the journalist and not Baby Reindeer**) apparently has a degree in English Literature from Christ’s College, Cambridge. Harvey has attended almost every UN CoP since 2004. Glasgow must have been a bummer. Not exactly an exotic location, that.
So another bona fide umc (upper middle class) elitist with no real background in science, not even a childhood chemistry set. The whole article drips with naked political hacktivism. Consensus is a political concept and has nothing to do with objective science. But the message is conveyed by political people, and some scientists are a little too political in their approach to their work – think Stephen Schneider…
“On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest.” —Dr. Stephen Schneider, former IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, APS Online, Aug./Sep. 1996
The Guardian and the truth parted company in the early 1980s and have never been reunited. I think Satan will be skating to work before they are.
** https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/27592197/fiona-harvey-baby-reindeer-real-life-martha-stalker/
Darnit. You beat me to it.
It takes an English major to declare what science says.
“we are now witnessing the last gasp of a defeated ideology of climate denialism”
Somebody needs to inform her that Trump won by a landslide partly due to his “denialism”. Not exactly a last gasp. More like a waking up gasp followed by healthy deep breathing.
A sharp intake of breath…
The Reform Party in the UK has vowed to end Net Zero, and is currently leading in the polls. NZ is electoral poison, it seems.
Fiona will be pleased at the disarray in the Tory Party
James Cleverly takes on Kemi Badenoch over decision to ditch net zero targets
Senior Tory to give speech in which he will criticise ‘neo-luddites’ on right for failing to embrace green technology
James Cleverly has taken direct aim at Kemi Badenoch’s decision to ditch net zero targets by criticising what he called “neo-luddites” on the right who seem scared of using green technologies to protect the environment.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/04/james-cleverly-kemi-badenoch-net-zero-targets
The clue isn’t in the name.
Reform UK will be laughing their heads off
You have to wonder how long it is before the party splits, with the not so clever CEN crew heading left leaving a rump to be picked over by Reform.
Doesn’t the existence of Reform demonstrate that it has already split?
All this while I’ve believed I was a climate denier and it turns out I’m a neo-ludd
The debate has shifted because the absurd climate policies are now hurting people.
The pain is only just beginning – in earnest. There is much to come.
Ms Harvey claims that “climate denialism” has been defeated by the weight of “scientific consensus”
None of those who criticize climate alarmism deny climate changes. To do so would be as foolish as to deny that the air we breathe is composed of oxygen and nitrogen with a small percentage of carbon dioxide and even smaller amounts of other gasses. What they do deny is that any climate changes will have catastrophic results. This is something Ms Harvey has been unable to prove in laboratory tests. Had the greatest English scientist, Michael Faraday, been living today he would have branded her claims as total hogwash as they totally violated the scientific method he followed.
And the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 0.05% in fact.
More than 83,000 people attended COP28 [party of the councils] in Dubai. A quick search did not find the number from the USA. Nice to know would be the total number and taxes required for all these parties. As far as controlling Carbon Dioxide, or the mythical global temperature, there has been no benefit. Then there are lost opportunities.
We, the skeptics and pragmatists do not deny science.
We acknowledge that the planet’s climate has changed repeatedly over the eons.
We acknowledge that the energy transfers in the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere are dynamic, coupled, and chaotic.
We embrace that Gaia is much more clever than we who descended from monkeys.
We are offended by the blatant hubris that humans can control the weather.
We deny the science is settled.
We deny consensus is science.
We deny climate and climate change, both statistical constructs, can affect weather.
We deny models are data and the projections are valid predictions.
We deny modelling molecular interactions on a 25 km grid is a valid or meaningful.
We deny models that assert CO2 as an input to get temperature as an output, is a valid approach.
We deny manipulating data is scientifically valid.
We deny hindcasting is model validation. It is simply curve fitting.
We deny the validity of hijacking and redefining words is a good means of communication. Positive feedback, trapping heat, thermalizing electromagnetic radiation are all bogus in the current climate apocalypse vocabulary.
We deny the sun is constant. We deny the earth’s orbit is circular. We deny the planet is a perfect sphere. We deny the incident solar energy is constant everywhere. Pure and simple geometry demonstrates this.
We deny the CO2 is the “control knob” for the weather.
We deny that destroying western civilization and reducing the population to under a few hundred thousand is necessary to safe the planet.
We deny the planet needs extreme measures to protect it.
We watch with glowing alarm as the climate syndicate gets richer and richer and the rest of us suffer. We view with distain the elitist position of good for thee but not for me.
We are Primates, apes. No tails. Monkeys have tails.
But go back further there is a common ancestor..
The choice of monkey was deliberate, used for imagery, even though not precisely accurate.
30 COP summits and 30 years of increased CO2 emissions.
In Climate Science ™ that is a direct correlation and proof COP summits are causing increases levels of CO2.
Stop the COP summits now to save the planet.
+10
“Consensus” rears its’ ugly head again when discussing science.
Nice to see the Keeling curve versus COPs again. Will anyone correct me if I say that looking closely at the SAWTOOTH In expansion mode there was no change as a result of the substantial COVID deindustrialisation. Why?
There was no deindustrialization. There was about a 20% drop for a couple of months. Not big enough to show up in such a noisy signal.
I didn’t realise Joe 90 had changed his name to Fiona
Irrational zealots claiming the debate is settled mark an inflection point discrediting their unscientific nonsense completely. Hopefully the ridiculous endangerment finding will be overturned and their fraud will be finally ended. Their screechings are death throws.
The chart alone tells much of the story regarding the failures of one COP conference after the next. Add the facts that new coal plants are continuing to be built in developing countries and that when old ones are being retired they’re being replaced by gas-fired electrical generation stations, not wind or solar, and we’re reminded further of the dominance of fossil fuels regardless of The Guardian’s wishful thinking.
Are you certain that is NOT trans-Johnson ?
The Guardian does seem to attract the unhinged.