Essay by Eric Worrall
“… It is perfectly OK to have different opinions on climate change. What becomes problematic is when a society can no longer agree on facts …”
‘Enforced veganism’: Ofcom lets GB News flout accuracy rules, say climate campaigners
Exclusive: Regulator has received 1,221 complaints about UK broadcasters since 2020 but found no breaches of its code
Damian Carrington Environment editor
Sat 25 Oct 2025 17.00 AEDT
…
Ofcom has received 1,221 complaints related to the climate crisis since January 2020, when its searchable database began. None resulted in a ruling that the broadcasting code had been breached. In fact, only two such breaches have been found since 2007.
…
In contrast, the French regulator Arcom has found four broadcasting code breaches related to the climate crisis in the last two years. In one, the rightwing channel CNews was fined €20,000 (£17,000) for a segment in which a speaker said climate change was “a lie, a scam”.
…
The burning of fossil fuels has “unequivocally caused global warming”, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. …
Ofcom’s broadcasting code requires that factual programmes “must not materially mislead the audience” and that “news, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality”. The code further requires that “alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented” when programme presenters express their own views on matters of political controversy or public policy. Guidance notes for the code add that: “An example of an issue which Ofcom considered to be broadly settled is the scientific principles behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming.”
…
Eva Morel, at QuotaClimat, the French campaign group that filed the climate complaints to Arcom, said: “It is perfectly OK to have different opinions on climate change. What becomes problematic is when a society can no longer agree on facts, because facts are the foundation of trust, which in turn underpins law, and ultimately, democracy.”
She added: “When the media blur the line between facts and opinions, it doesn’t lead people to trust in alternative truths; it leads them to trust in nothing at all. Sowing doubt about climate science serves to obstruct climate action and it endangers lives.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/25/enforced-veganism-ofcom-gb-news-flout-accuracy-rules-say-climate-campaigners
Is Britain planning forced Veganism? I believe it is reasonable to think so. In 2024 the government backed Climate Change Committee claimed in a letter to the government that Britons must switch to a more plant based diet. There is plenty of talk about the need to reduce agricultural emissions by reducing meat consumption. Whether that forced veganism is achieved by simply pricing meat out of ordinary people’s reach, or an actual law which bans meat consumption, the result is the same.
What about climate activist Eva Morel’s demand that we all agree a common set of facts?
The problem with the kind of enforced agreement on the “facts” climate activist Eva Morel demands is in science, there is no such thing as a fact which cannot be challenged.
Nobel Prize winner Barry Marshall overturned decades of consensus that peptic ulcers are a metabolic imbalance, by proving peptic ulcers are actually an infection caused by a difficult to culture bacteria, Helicobacter pylori.
Albert Einstein overturned centuries of consensus that space and time are absolute and unchanging, by proving the only way to explain unexplained phenomena such as a the fact the speed of light stays the same, regardless of the velocity of the source, is if different observers can disagree about the flow of time and measured distances.
But Einstein himself came under challenge – he spent decades trying to challenge the fundamental weirdness of Quantum Physics, or as Einstein disparagingly described it, “spooky action at a distance” – and failed. The computer I’m using to write this article, the billions of transistors contained in its integrated circuits, were all designed using principles of that Quantum Physics which Einstein struggled to accept.
Yet we know there is something wrong with Quantum Physics – because even though Quantum Physics grew directly out of Einstein’s research, Quantum Physics and Einstein’s General Relativity fundamentally contradict each other. Both theories appear to pass every test which has been thrown at them – but they can’t both be right. Some of the more terrifying experiments with large particle accelerators are conducted by scientists who want to create a small black hole, so they can observe the nexus between Quantum Physics and Relativity up close. Let’s hope if they ever succeed, the Quantum Physics prediction the black hole will immediately evaporate in a shower of exotic particles prevails over the General Relativity prediction that the black hole will grow exponentially and consume the entire Earth.
What about really fundamental facts about the universe, like the “fact” that we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension? Even this everyday understanding of the nature of reality is constantly being challenged on a number of fronts, ranging from proponents of the Holographic Principle, who point out that the universe in important and fundamental ways behaves as if there are only two spatial dimensions, that our three dimensional experience may be an illusion which masks a deeper reality, to higher dimensional string theory proponents, some of whom think the universe might have as many as 26 spatial dimensions. It might seem crazy to challenge something as tangible as the number of spatial dimensions in our reality, but the scientists exploring these ideas have serious reasons for doing so. The universe may be a much stranger place than our everyday experience leads us to believe.
Do climate models produce “facts” which are beyond challenge?
The following are the words of the late great Freeman Dyson giving his views on climate models;
… My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. …
Read more: https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
Was Dyson right about climate models struggling to describe the real world? We have some corroboration for Dyson’s criticism, from the climate modelling community. Some climate scientists admit their inability to model clouds is a problem.
There is a serious hypothesis, Lindzen’s Iris Effect, which suggests changes in cloudiness and precipitation may largely counteract anthropogenic warming.
Understanding precipitation is vitally important to understanding the future of climate change, because big storms especially in principle have the capacity to completely counteract all anthropogenic global warming. Storms push vast amounts of heat up to the edge of space, acting as a natural air conditioner, punching a hole straight through most of the Earth’s greenhouse blanket. But the reality is nobody knows how clouds, precipitation and storms will behave as CO2 levels rise, or even if CO2 levels will continue to rise. Today’s climate models just aren’t good enough to capture this kind of effect.
My point is, to declare some facts are beyond challenge, especially “facts” produced by artefacts as flimsy as climate models, is to strike at the foundations of freedom of expression and scientific inquiry. Forcing broadcasters to embrace a uniform, government approved version of unassailable facts, then claiming they still somehow have freedom of expression, is utter nonsense.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All science shows should clarify that any details provided are subject now AND in the future to a rightful challenge that may lead to an alternate understanding and outcome.
Science is NOT fixed in time nor place and should always be considered fluid.
How any arbitrary body could miss such a critical understanding astounds me, clearly they fail to understand that a ruling today that climate change must not be challenged MAY be equivalent to declaring the Earth is the centre of the cosmos. And to award cost penalties on that basis. Really.
For all I know, the climate theories could be correct but to shut one side down and prevent discussion or broadcast is not the path to knowledge.
Ian,
You touch on one of the more annoying techniques that has become prominent in social debate since about 2010. The technique is simple. You choose to ignore alternative views. You do not reply to requests for your answers to topics.
“Cancel culture” is now allowed to be used like a weapon, despite many examples from history that it is contrary to the advancement of knowledge.
…
In matrimonial circles, some of us call this technique “a dose of the quiets from the missus”. It is not just words that suddenly stop. I wonder (dangerously) whether the cancel culture we now endure was a product of mainly female invention and enthusiasm.
I wonder if the current fall in birth rates in many countries is partly a consequence of adopting a “refusal to consider” option to help win an argument.
Personally, I consider that great societal harm can already be demonstrated because of the widespread use of the rather juvenile “dose of the quiets”. Geoff S
Adages to live by #1: Happy wife. Happy life!
Not for nothing do the traditional marriage vows include the words “for better or for worse”.
Adage #2…Get along with your neighbour!
Definitely not the theory that says global warming on Earth is primarily and directly caused by burning fossil fuels.
To believe that, you have to discount millennia of evidence to the contrary.
I will stick with Milankovitch unit someone can prove him wrong. All the ducks are presently lining up for the NH to move back into glaciation. NH oceans warming and Greenland gaining altitude. Compelling evidence Earth’s relationship with the Sun is still the dominant climate driver.
New daily snowfall records already set this NH fall. Everest and Montana are tow so far.
Problem is people now mix up science and THE SCIENCE. The first is the age old process of observation, repetition etc, while the second is a religious dogma, much the same as people ending discussions with the BIBLE says.
Throwing out a thought. The 7 years of famine and 7 years of feast attributed to Moses was merely the El Nino and La Nina cycles
That would be Joseph, Moses was some 400 years later.
In fact, time and space themselves are not fixed, and should always be considered fluid. It’s amazing how often people don’t actually realise this.
I do not believe that the NASA JPL velocity of the Sun is accurate. Nor that counting sunspots as they appear on the western side of the Sun from a moving platforms gives a true indication of the number of sunspots on the sun in any point of time.
Making corrections for the sun initial velocity but using the JPL gravitational forces and the adjustment for observing sunspots from a moving platform, I get high correlation between the square of the sun velocity and sunspot number.
The sun only moves a few metres per second so it is not easy to detect its speed from Earth.
The test of my prediction will be over the next decade.
Please provide a link, I haven’t encountered this issue before.
I’m aware of the challenge attempting to relate modern sunspot counts to counts taken manually with primitive instruments in previous centuries.
The linked folder has 5 images that assumes 24 persistent sunspots equally distributed around the sun. The sunspots are located at a latitude that rotates 360 degrees in 28 days.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1E8ORTI3SKLUGur_EVbu5_0sEEWj0OBig?usp=share_link
The observer on Earth counts sunspots as they appear. On Day zero sunspot numbered 7 just becomes visible so gets counted. The position of the observer moves 1 degree every day and there are 28 days of observation at 7 day intervals.
By day 28, only 23 sunspots have been counted. Number 6 is not yet observed.
I have corrected for the proximity of the observer and the wide view angle by assuming sunspots are visible when their radial arm is perpendicular to the line of sight to the centre of the Sun.
The point CR is the effective centre of rotation for the observer. Earth does not rotate around the centre of the Sun but it would not make any difference to the counting error if it did.
In a nutshell, every year, an observer on Earth misses about one rotation of the Sun; remembering that the rotational speed of the Sun varies by latitude and the Sun is also rotating about some point in space. So the actual count correction is complex but using a single adjustment over the past 40 years works OK. The observer times needs to be compressed to match true time on the Sun.
Ah the Magellan problem – after sailing around the world, they discovered on returning the Spain their logs were one day out. Circumnavigating the world Westwards meant the sailors experienced one less day than people who stayed home in Spain.
I may have heard that story but have since forgotten it. But, yes. that is similar problem. Timing of events can depend on the movement of the observer.
The sun time as observed by sunspot count is compressed compared with what we observe from Earth. Observed sunspots need to be compressed to around a 323 day year to give alignment with what is observed.
The forces acting on the Sun appear to be correct but the velocity is a bit out. My orbit for the past 40 years never shortcuts the barycentre wheras JPL’s orbit shortcuts the barycentre in 1990.
I am still trying to work out why sunspots should be rated to the square of the velocity of the centre of the Sun.
We now have “The International Date Line”.
“December 7th, 1941. A date that will live in infamy”.
But in Japan, it was December 8th. 😎
(Of course, that was before Doc Brown bought a DeLorean)
Now I’m reminded of George Carlin talking about kids trying to stump the priest …
[talking about getting to the last day you can serve communion, and being at a ship at sea]
“But then you cross the International Date Line! Is that then a sin then, father?”
Does that mean if we can afford a really fast boat and a fleet of similarly fast refueling vessels that we can get younger by continually traveling west at a high rate of speed? 😉
I’m reminded of Pink Floyd…
“And you run and you run to catch up with the Sun but it’s sinking…racing around to come up behind you again…the Sun is the same in a relative way but you’re older…shorter of breath, and one day closer to death”
It’s not a joke anymore: Orson Wells is looking down from heaven and says….”I wrote the book 1984 as a warning, not as an instruction manual”.
The proof climate change has become a state religion in some places is the serious attempts by the most fanatical devotees to use the law to prosecute heretics.
In my view, the Biden administration’s all-of-government directives toward net-zero represented a violation of the establishment clause of our First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” And the deliberate suppression of heretical views by government and quasi-government actors quickly became obvious.
The Obama and Biden administrations violated the U.S. Constitution numerous times.
Perhaps they will be held accountable now, seeing as how they are being investigated by Congress and by the Justice Department.
There are many traitors to their country in the Obama and Biden administrations, including both presidents. They posed the most serious threat to our way of government, and our freedoms, in this country’s history. The Enemy Within.
I don’t think we will be able to put people like Obama and Biden in jail for their crimes, but if the truth comes out, and the American people realize how corrupt and dangerous these people are, that will be enough.
Obama and Biden are no different than every other potential dictator in history. They don’t play fair, and when they get political power, they are very dangerous as they have no restraints on their activities. It’s all about power to them and you better get out of their way if you know what’s good for you.
That’s over, temporarily. If they are not held accountable, then we can expect more of the same criminality, and loss of freedoms, in the future, and next time we may not be so lucky as to be able to vote them out of office.
Not over.
W.A.R.
https://youtu.be/FhSy-6VqIww?si=PTRAlCCSs-TQ0DPX
Sorry – NOT Orson Wells
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950) was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist, and critic who wrote under the pen name of George Orwell
Huh, I must be tired. Normally I would have picked up on the misattribution.
Forgiven.
After all, you’re not an AI. All of us non-AIs make mistakes.( Some of us even admit to them!) 😎
Ha! I didn’t notice that! My brain simply filled in the correct name as I quickly read the post.
Orson Wells?… You mean George Orwell?
Orson Wells was a very famous film maker and actor. His master film was “Citizen Kane”. He wrote the screen play, directed and starred in the film.
George Orwell, not Orson Wells, wrote 1984.
George Orwell even 🙂
Wow, I don’t know where I got Orson Wells from 🙂 Getting old ain’t for sissies.
Amen to that! Getting old hurts!
George Orwell, not Orson Wells.
I think you mean George Orwell.
The spirit of Trofim Lysenko?
Good old Trofim. Smart fellow, highly qualified, logical thinking, completely wrong. Ah well, Svante Arrhenius believed that subjecting children to low frequency electrical fields make them smarter and grow faster. He also helped set up “The State Institute for Racial Biology”.
Even Isaac Newton spent copious amounts of energy trying to transmute base metals into gold, and his slightly unorthodox religious beliefs generated far more written output than anything else he believed in.
Smart people, even scientists, can have fanciful ideas and be completely wrong, while still gulling the general population into believing complete nonsense. Just look at people in high places who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
Lysenko would be thrilled!
Good writeup, here, Eric! For a government to criminalize a vocalized disagreement with enforced “facts” is a scary prospect.
About Barry Marshall and ulcers, there is a tangential source of local pride for me. I worked during this time for Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals, formerly Norwich Pharmacal Company, the originators and manufacturers of Pepto-Bismol. We had a product program called “triple therapy” based on Marshall’s work, but I was not directly involved in it. We were all proud of our company for supporting this discovery.
“The media buzz caught the attention of Proctor (sic) and Gamble, the makers of the bismuth-containing antacid, Pepto-Bismol. P&G realized the economic potential of Marshall’s work and funded a fellowship for him to continue his research in the U.S.”
Source: https://thepharmacologist.org/curing-peptic-ulcers/
What an amazing thing to be proud of David, you can reasonably claim to have contributed to saving millions of people from an agonising medical condition.
David,
When do you think EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin will issue a formal announcement rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding? Everyday I had been checking the Federal Register for the announcement but it had not been posted before government shut down.
When he issues the announcement, he will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man. All the radical environmental NGO will panic and go bust when the funds from the charities and foundations dry up.
Hello Harold,
I share your enthusiasm for Zeldin to follow through to rescind the Finding. I hope it comes soon. I expect a barrage of intensive resistance. So it would be good to prepare for a long program of informed persuasion based on valid scientific material, to counter the unsound claims of harm from emissions of CO2 and other IR-active trace gases.
I’m guessing it won’t be rescinded until there is rock-solid evidence that can stand up against the inevitable lawsuits (hunting for Left appointed judges).
The evidence shouldn’t be hard since what the Endangerment Finding is based on quicksand. (or a hockey stick?)
Pardon me for being a hick from the sticks, but what in the flack is Ofcom? I tried the link which questioned whether I was a human – how’s that for irony? Then it tossed up six layers of bad cookies. I needed to hose my ‘puter off.
What I mean is do they have a physical address? GPS coordinates? Can you go see them face-to-face? Because if so, maybe they need a visit from somebody with a shovel.
Ofcom regulate licenses for public broadcasters, along with broadband and internet providers. A bit like the US FCC, but with a broader range of responsibilities, including a level of oversight of broadcast content which would be considered unconstitutional in the USA.
Ofcom are still trying to work out what to do about podcasters and new media, but it takes time to work through the issues. After all, it has only been 35 years since internet based content providers became a thing.
I will never get used to the practice of using a single entity as a plural.
What’s mine’s is mines.
Careful where you step! 😎
I know I get sloppy with proper grammar and punctuation and spelling.
Such thinks ARE important to communicate ideas accurately and meant to last beyond present “jargon” (for lack of a better word).
It would be a monumental task for WUWT to do, but, perhaps someone “in the know” could make up a glossary of the various international political parties, acronyms, etc.?
If some brave person does that, maybe provide a link for a WUWT dropdown?
You might need a boat as well as a shovel. See the photo on the agency’s web page on Wikipedia.
And by the by, is Eva Morel a mushroom? Asking for a friend.
“Is Britain planning forced Veganism? I believe it is reasonable to think so.”
The writer appears to have lost touch with reality with this sensationalist drivel. No evidence is presented that this is the case, and the link provided says “The Climate Change Committee said in an ideal scenario, meat and dairy consumption should halve by 2050”.
Veganism is abstaining from all animal-based products including dairy, which is not what is being suggested here. This unhinged claptrap is curiously reminiscent of climate change extremists who make similarly outlandish and demonstrably false claims to justify sabotaging car tires or vandalizing priceless art. Was this slop written by an AI chatbot?
If a carbon tax is applied to meat, eggs and milk, to fund climate actions which allegedly counteract the harm producing that high carbon emission meat causes, the result for poor people who already struggle to afford nutritious food would be enforced veganism, even if there is no outright ban on eating meat.
Anyone who suggests a carbon tax on meat is out of the question hasn’t been following the debate. Britain already imposes taxes on other products the government considers harmful, like alcohol and tobacco.
Well let’s try and pin down some facts, to the extent possible, before the resident trolls and sock puppets get here to amplify your ludicrous claim of “forced veganism”.
I was able to confirm that such a carbon tax has indeed been proposed at some international climate change forums. A typical figure seems to be 15%, and even the link you provided just had a target of reducing meat consumption by 2050, which is a long way in the future. Framing this as “forced veganism” is false and any government that tried it would be forced to backtrack quickly by protests from low income earners. This may have happened already in the UK as from what I can find, the UK government announced such a tax a few years ago but seems to have quietly dropped it.
However, whether or not it is framed as a carbon tax, there is a legitimate argument for making meat more expensive, as it has been historically, but it is not about claimed climate change effects. It is more about the atrocious conditions that factory farms keep their animals in, and linked effects such as overuse of antibiotics on livestock leading to antibiotic-resistant “super-germs” which are now a menace in hospitals worldwide.
If you want to write strong headlines in Daily Mail style, that would actually be worth highlighting.
I’m glad we agree that a climate tax on meat plausible – though I’m a little confused why you still disagree that this would amount to forced veganism for people who are already struggling to put meat on the table. Such a tax wouldn’t necessarily cause a backlash, it could be ratcheted up slowly, so people slowly adjust to eating less meat, along with a well funded campaign to convince people eating meat is harmful – similarly to how tobacco taxes were ratcheted up.
Whether such a meat tax is justified is a separate from whether we agree a meat tax is a plausible political development in today’s Britain.
The British Government has a track record of successfully shifting societal values.
For example, before the 1920s it was fairly common for British people to carry a small revolver for self defence, but after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia the British establishment grew frightened the same thing could happen in Britain, and began a sustained campaign to convince people private ownership of guns was wrong.
The impact of this cannot be overstated. When I took a South African friend and his British girlfriend out clay pigeon shooting, the British girlfriend couldn’t cope with shooting the clays – she had been so indoctrinated by anti-gun propaganda she felt wrong just touching the gun.
If you doubt my claim about Brits thinking handguns were OK for self defence before the 1920s, read a few old Sherlock Holmes books. Dr Watson didn’t always carry his handgun, but he certainly had it handy whenever the situation got dangerous. Watson owning a handgun and carrying it for self defence was unremarkable when the books were written, because such behaviour was reflective of the times.
You want to start talking about handguns in Sherlock Holmes books, which are fiction from the Victorian period? Talk about a strawman!
Getting back to the topic at hand, you seem to be acknowledging that your claim of “forced veganism” is implausible in today’s Britain. If it happened, I suppose the label could be used as a slogan.
Back in the real world, such a tax was apparently actually announced as I mentioned but then dropped, so as with most of these things the truth is somewhere in the middle. There is usually an element of truth in claims by extremists on the left and right.
But indeed, we seem to agree on the main facts to the extent they can be ascertained.
No, a tax on meat would impose forced veganism on people who already struggle to put meat on the table. That would amount to forced veganism, even if it didn’t apply to everyone.
I doubt people who regularly dine at the Ritz or Savoy would be inconvenienced by any meat restrictions. Just as our climate heroes clock up more air miles than any ordinary person, the elites would not suffer the restrictions they want to impose on everyone else. This is a long standing pattern of behaviour, even during WW2, if you could afford to eat in expensive restaurants wartime rationing didn’t apply to you.
It could be framed that way if it were to happen, but as far as I can tell it isn’t going to happen so a moot point. You have moderated your language here to a hypothetical “that would amount to forced veganism” which is a change from the hyperventilating tone of your article, which indicated it is an immediate danger.
So I thank you for that, but would still support measures to make meat more expensive due to the factory farm and antibiotic resistance issue. No easy ways here, but that is a real-world problem that kills people every day and the existence of which is not contested.
Fred, I mentioned the possibility of meat being priced out of people’s reach as opposed to an outright ban in the article.
You are dealing with someone who’s objection is ideological, not factual.
Back in the late ’90’s I used to hang around on an AOL forum “Animal Rights/Animal Welfare”.
(For those who don’t remember or never heard of them, a “forum” was just an endless list of “comments” that to which others would respond. A “forum” was not a blog.)
Anyway, the Animal Rights crowd would often comment that eating meat was eating carrion. I’d respond that going vegan was eating compost.
Never got a comeback. 😎
😄😆😅🤣😂
Priceless!
Eric, you could do a bit of fear-mongering by alerting the Government to the fact that plants produce CO2 (amongst other nasty things) when they decay. Quite a lot, globally.
So it appears that veganism really is a form of Satanism, and its followers should be shunned, because they cunningly only eat parts of plants, and leave the rest to rot – increasing CO2 levels which they believe will result in the extermination of humanity – leaving Gaia to heave a huge sigh of relief.
Indeed – and what about the rights of plants? Did they give permission to be plundered by humans? I saw that Goodies episode 🙂
Well the trolls and sock puppets have arrived and the conversation has descended into silly ad hominems and even sillier talk about obscure TV shows from England long ago (from Wikipedia). What a nonsense site this is.
Self reflection is totally lost on the alarmist clan.
The troll and sock puppet *is you.*
Of course enforced Veganism is a paranoid delusion. But that is what happens with AI.
It just makes stuff up.
No one should fall for it.
Another sign that this article was not written by a human being is the focus on an Anglophone country. Most AI are trained on English texts first and that biases them.
It does report that the French regulator has made rulings on news coverage and levied fines for doubting climate change severity. It also says that the UK regulator has not.
Yet it focuses on the UK and misses the French reality.
Clearly, this is not the writings if an actual intelligence. It’s AI slop.
Pure speculations that have been invalidated by empirical measurements are presented as unquestionable facts by gatekeepers who should be the ones in jail for fraud. The EU is no different than the CCP now.
The CCCP as well.
Yes, Climate Alarmists think their speculation and assumptions about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere are established facts.
No proof of Climate Alarmist claims can be found, but they insist the “science is settled”. “Insisting” is not science. Thinking speculation is equivalent to established facts is not science. It’s delusion.
Delusion defines left wing reasoning. Everything they believe is based on false narratives and false assumptions. The CO2/control knob hypothesis has zero empirical support but is promoted as an unquestionable fact.
This gives light to the fact that no-one knows much about the climate but some people don’t know about it in much more complicated ways which allows them to believe their own bullshit and sell it to others.
Fact *No one knows if human co2 has done anything outside natural variation.
Fact *No one can predict the future.
Fact *No one knows how sensitive the atmosphere is to carbon dioxide.
Fact *No one can say going net zero will measurably cool the Earth.
Fact *No one can refute the above facts with models or feelings.
I can refute one of those with observations.
The atmosphere is completely INSENSITIVE to carbon dioxide.
As shown by the occurrence of GLACIATION with TEN TIMES as much as today.
Along with ice core reconstructions that show the Earth’s temperature consistently BEGINS WARMING when atmospheric CO2 is FALLING and near its LOW point, and consistently BEGINS COOLING when atmospheric CO2 is RISING and near its HIGH point, in each case REVERSE CORRELATION lasting HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
The quote from Eva Morel gets it EXACTLY right until the highlighted sentence where the conclusion inverts the inescapable inference and completely contradicts the first sentence.
When the media blur the line between facts and opinions, it doesn’t lead people to trust in alternative truths; it leads them to trust in nothing at all. Sowing doubt about climate science serves to obstruct climate action and it endangers lives.
And apparently without suffering the after effects of the blindingly obvious logical whiplash or any pause for thought!
She is assuming “climate action” is necessary, without any supporting evidence.
Her assumption is her reality. But it’s a false reality. Unfortunately, she has been given a big megaphone to spread her delusional thinking.
Assuming things without evidence is pure speculation, and is not established fact or science.
Exactly. I thought the same thing. She didn’t appreciate for a moment that her decree exhibited exactly the behavior she was looking to punish.
There is no such phenomena such as “climate change” because most of the earth’s surface is water, rocks, sand, ice and snow. The activities of humans can have no effect on the vast Pacific ocean, the Andes mountains, or the Sahara Desert. In cities and adjacent suburban areas, local climate can be changed due to the UHI effect. In some countries, stripping the land of plants for firewood and food for animals has resulted in desertification.
Please go to Wikipedia and read about the Köppen Climate Classification System. Wladimir Köppen ( 1846-1940) and his colleague Rudolf Geiger (1894-1981) were metrologists and the
first climate scientists.
Now adays many “climate scientists” are mathematicians with expertise in computer technology and modeling and believe they can model the climate using their new fancy super computers.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we emit a lot of it. In addition as you say we have cleared a lot of trees, land use changes have inflicted substantial changes on rainfall over large regions. But quantifying that impact is a challenge which is far from solved, and given surging food production over the last few decades there is no indication we face any kind of imminent crisis.
There is too much hype about global warming and climate change out there. I live in Canada and most of the people in band of land ca. 250 miles x 5,000 miles long. Most of Canada is unoccupied by humans as Russian Siberia.
“Concern” about our pittance of CO2 emissions put into an atmosphere loaded with water vapor is akin to spitting in the ocean and the panicking about how you have polluted it.
Criticizing climate orthodoxy is clearly crimethink. If the proles cannot self-execute crimestop, the Party must act.
“Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
– Syme, speaking to Winston
I once had the privilege of a 20 minute one on one conversation at a bar with Nigel Farage. Farage had no reason to lie to me, or even talk to me – I told him straight up I was leaving Britain, and this was before I wrote for WUWT, he just wanted to have a conversation about what was happening in Britain and the world.
Farage is exactly the same in person as he is on TV, he has always been the one leading politician in Britain who doesn’t give a stuff about maintaining some kind of persona. He could have become leader of the Tory Party long ago if he took the easy road of being a fake.
If Farage becomes the next Prime Minister, it won’t take long for him to sweep this nonsense into the dustbin of history.
And Trump will have Farage’s back. Would love to see it. The UK needs to take a different direction and soon. The UK economy has already suffered greatly under this Net Zero policy insanity.
Why not?
Even one of your references states –
Scientific fact is only fact until experiment or observation proves that it isn’t. Journalists, governments, and “scientists” can bleat and leap about all they like – the universe cares not.
Weather, and its statistics, continuously changes. Chaotic and unpredictable – until someone manages to prove otherwise.
I think it was Einstein who said “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” Einstein was wrong about other things (quantum physics being one), but I agree with him about human stupidity.
Just look around.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I guess.
I gave an example of where Relativity and Quantum physics disagree, the behaviour of micro black holes. Quantum physics says a really small black hole should evaporate almost instantly in a puff of exotic particles, while Relativity suggests it should grow without limit. They can’t both be right.
There is a great video on the difficulty of quantising gravity, which discusses how weird things get when you try to marry gravitational space and time dilation to Heisenberg uncertainty, nobody has a good solution for that contradiction.
Actually all relativity says is that black holes are stable. They don’t have to grow. If you don’t feed one then it stays the same size.
True – but a black hole created inside the LHC might have plenty of mass to feed on – if it doesn’t evaporate first
A Layman’s question.
What is the proof that “blacks holes” actually exist?
Are they just the explanation for what we don’t really know that explains some of what we don’t really know?
(PS Sci-Fi stuff has used them a lot in their plots. I’ve enjoyed most of those shows.) 😎
An objects mass can be calculated by measuring the impact it has on the paths of nearby objects. A large number of masses have been found, whose gravity is so great that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.
Eric, as Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Black holes are theoretical, as far as I know. Who cares what fantasists “think”?<g>
Seriously, though, after 14 billion years (or whatever), black holes don’t seem to have consumed the universe. I’m with Feynman – speculation or guessing about the reasons for observation. Is your guess correct? Experiment gives the answer, more or less. You can never prove your guess correct – but experiment can certainly prove it incorrect.
Quantum electrodynamics is a relativistic quantum field theory, combining relativity and quantum mechanics. To my limited knowledge, no prediction of QED theory has ever been disproved by experiment – although many have tried, not wanting to accept that God might “play at dice”.
Many scientists simply refuse to accept experimental results which support QED, just as many scientists refuse to believe that adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter!
As an aside, the Internet is full of nonsense about quantum mechanics, relativity and the warming powers of CO2. Makes life difficult, doesn’t it?
Eric asks “Is Public Criticism of Climate Claims a Criminal Offence in Today’s Britain?”well let’s see what the article he links to says:
“Ofcom has received 1,221 complaints related to the climate crisis since January 2020, when its searchable database began. None resulted in a ruling that the broadcasting code had been breached. In fact, only two such breaches have been found since 2007”
So it seems fair to say that the answer to Eric’s question is a resounding no. Zero out of
1221 is pretty much and open and shut case. It makes one wonder if Eric actually read the article.
We’ll see. The answer in France at least appears to be yes. And there is a lot of pressure to do the same in Britain. I quoted that paragraph deliberately to provide context.
Even in France the answer is a clear ‘no’. The issue is that “news” and “opinion” need to be clearly separated. Something which is the case in theory at least in the US as well. Which is why CBS agreed to pay Trump 16 million for deceptively editing Harris’ interview.
My understanding is Trump sued CBS because they interfered with the election by editing the Kamala interview to alter the answers she gave to specific questions. There is no guarantee Trump would have won – but the issue was sufficiently embarrassing the defendants decided to settle, rather than have their in my opinion questionable editing practices dragged through the courts.
The standard Eva Morales and her fellow travellers appear to be trying to establish is very different, it is about preventing people from saying the climate emergency is a hoax. My point is this would be disastrous for free speech and scientific inquiry.
So are you saying that CBS has to tell the truth but that French news organisations are allowing to lie about climate? Surely if CBS has to honestly broadcast interviews then news agencies also have a responsibility to not to lie about the climate? Which is exactly what the French cases are about. Calling climate change “a lie a scam” is very different from presenting alternative scientific views about why it is happening.
My point is statements like “there is no climate emergency”, or “climate change is a scam” should not be prosecutable offences. Eva Morel’s demand that broadcasters stick to agreed facts in my opinion is an anti-freedom abomination.
Again you are missing the point. Morel is saying that news and opinion should be separate. You have the complete freedom to say what you want as long as you make it clear that it is your opinion. Which is again the rule in the US. News needs to be impartial while opinion doesn’t.
How do we separate news from opinion? Covid taught us everything we need to know about propaganda like safe and effective or Covid originated from a pangolin…lol
She’s also demanding that the government’s opinions regarding global warming be treated as facts.
“Eva Morel’s demand that broadcasters stick to agreed facts”
In this case “agreed facts” are speculation and unsubstantiated assumptions.
Here is a fact: There is no evidence that CO2 can cause the Earth’s climate to do anything it otherwise would not do.
I suppose Eva wouldn’t be too happy with me if I were a citizen of the UK. But she can’t prove me wrong because she has no evidence to provide because there is no evidence to provide.
Eva just wants everything about the climate that doesn’t agree with her thinking to be banned. It’s a form of lying.
Not allowed to lie about the climate, rather required to lie about the climate.
Disclaimer : I’ve been based in France for over 30 years, but still have a lot to learn about the French “mindset”.
The answer in France is most definitely not a clear “Non !”.
The Arcom fine (of €20,000, issued in July 2024) for “climatosceptique” opinions wasn’t because
— “one of the participants contested the anthropogenic influence on climate warming” — or even because they qualified it as a “lie” and a “scam”,
“The issue”, for Arcom, was not that a climato-sceptic opinion was made, it was that it was broadcast
— “without the defended position being put into perspective and that no contradiction was expressed following these words … the company is required to ensure a honest presentation of controversial issues, especially to ensure the expression of different viewpoints”.
Arcom fined C-News because the “moderator” of the program didn’t immediately jump in and say something like “Non, non, non ! The ‘scientific consensus’ is that you are completely wrong !”.
NB : The decision as to which “perspective” must be taken, and what constitutes a “honest” presentation of which set of “different viewpoints” for any specific “controversial” issue is, as usual in France, up to the state-appointed functionaries to decide.
The French/UK courts should similarly punish every AGW claim in the same light – their pronouncements about “climate change” should be equally “required” to be “balanced” by interjecting with the skeptical viewpoint.
We will decide what you can say and think with your taxes-
Met Police set to splurge £5m a year on 64-strong woke taskforce as mounted officers face job losses
Well they would load the public circus up with their mates if they’re on the nose with the voters now wouldn’t they?
PS: Don’t walk around London streets texting on your phone stoopids-
London Became a Global Hub for Phone Theft. Now We Know Why. – The New York Times
London is horribly dangerous, in my youth I spent a lot of time in London, and was confronted by muggers at least once a year. At the time I was 22 stone of martial art trained muscle, so I thought people demanding my money was hilarious – and responded by saying things like “come and take it”. But I’m much older now, not really up for sparing practice with ice head teenagers.
But I probably didn’t take safety seriously enough in those days, I walked everywhere – I used to walk through East London from Canary Wharf to Waterloo, or to and from a friend’s house in Mile End, for exercise.
My most hilarious encounter with muggers actually occurred in Cardiff, two guys stepped out of a doorway and said “What’s in the briefcase?”. I replied “Cocaine” and they ran away.
One time my friends and I were “mugged” by a member of the magic circle, he came and did card tricks while we were drinking beers outside a pub. At the end of the show he asked if we would like to make a contribution, we all said “yes”, it was an awesome show. He replied “Then you’ll probably need these”, and handed us our wallets. We all gave him £20 each, I mean he could have taken it anyway, and it was a really good street theatre show.
I watched (participated in) such a show in Olongapo PI. I knew what the oily guy in the white suit was doing, but I could not see him doing it. The end of the show was obvious, two toughs came into the room and scowled at us. It only cost me 40 pesos.
“It is perfectly OK to have different opinions on climate change. What becomes problematic is when a society can no longer agree on facts, because facts are the foundation of trust, which in turn underpins law, and ultimately, democracy.”
Here in lies the problem, one side can’t declare what the facts are and discount other evidence. If you have the facts show them to us if they hold up to proper scientific scrutiny and agree with observations that is one thing. The CAGW evidence offered up till now does not pass the smell test scientifically or by observation.
Absolutely – but I uphold the right of our opponents to hold a different opinion on this subject. It is them trying to prevent us from expressing our views which I find objectionable.
Exactly but if they are making policy they need to prove their case with proper science and show their results match observation. They can’t, they know they can’t therefore they declare they own the facts and no one can dispute their facts. I call bullshit on that.
I’d take that a step further. I’d say THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE of CAGW, or for that matter of AGW.
They have as a foundation a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL effect and they ASSUME it to be the reason for warming since The Little Ice Age (which they of course describe as “pre-industrial” to produce the inference that it is human caused, despite the fact that the warming “trend” began nearly a century BEFORE the industrial revolution and admission from their own side that meaningful human CO2 emissions didn’t occur until after WWII, so post 1945).
This assumption is supposedly grounded in them not being able to “account for” the warming without pointing to their pet CO2 hypothesis as the alleged “cause.”
Hypothetical bullshit + assumptions does not constitute “evidence.”
“It might seem crazy to challenge something as tangible as the number of spatial dimensions in our reality, but the scientists exploring these ideas have serious reasons for doing so. The universe may be a much stranger place than our everyday experience leads us to believe.”
Can the people promoting more or less than three spatial dimensions predict the movement of planets, or land a spacecraft on the surface of another world using their spatial theories? I’ll wait.
The higher dimensional string theorists have been criticised for being too disconnected from predictable phenomena, but the two dimensional spacetime theory arises from trying to combine equations which were originally developed to improve steam engine efficiency with general relativity.
This strange 2D universe hypothesis is uncomfortably close to testable phenomena. Like Sherlock Holmes said in the stories, “once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
I would like to think at least one person employed by the BBC might read this article. I would also like to think they might send a copy to their very own, Verify the facts office, for their consideration.
As the national broadcaster, the BBC has an obligation to inform, educate and entertain.
I would also like to think they keep in mind, education is a life long process and is not something limited to the (little) people they broadcast to. It would be a great benefit to society, if the BBC were big enough to admit they have been too partisan about Climate Change and its causes.
I would further like to think the BBC is still capable of self criticism, sadly the ongoing evidence does not support that optimistic thought I have.
Should the UK government be so unwise to even attempt to ban meats I predict UK butchers will march on Parliament and Downing Street and they will bring their knives.
People who are so frightened of words they don’t like, that they seek to use force to suppress them, reveal their own cowardice. Anyone who is secure in his own beliefs has no need to fear contrary views, and is content to answer them with reason, not force.
Precisely. They know that “The Science(TM)” regarding” climate change” is feeble, so they resort to suppression of opposing views to enforce what is essentially a secular religion.
“It is perfectly OK to have different opinions on climate change. What becomes problematic is when a society can no longer agree on facts, because facts are the foundation of trust, which in turn underpins law, and ultimately, democracy.”
The worst threat to law and democracy is from those who call a fallacy a fact and never change their opinion.
“Sowing doubt about climate science serves to obstruct climate action and it endangers lives.”
I sense some fatal conceit and persuasion here, but if doubt can be sown, the science cannot be that sound.
A correction:
“Sowing fear about climate serves to encourage foolish actions and it endangers lives.”
As long as the “judge” is talking about “facts,” that should be the admonishment from the bench.