No green activist operation makes clearer why they need to ban free speech and cancel scientific debate to achieve Net Zero hegemony than the Guardian newspaper. Last Saturday, we learnt from its Environment Editor Damian Carrington that campaigners had said the UK’s TV and radio regulator Ofcom was allowing GB News and others to ‘flout” accuracy rules and broadcast “climate change denial”, whatever that last phrase means. Carrington noted in response to frequent suggestions of inaccuracy in UN climate models going back to 1979, that, “in fact, UN climate models have been remarkably accurate”. How Carrington, one of three journalists of the year in 2023 at the Green Blob-funded Covering Climate Now, can write this with a straight face is anyone’s guess.
Net Zero is dead in the United States and there has been a welcome revival of the scientific process that has killed off the ridiculous notion that a science opinion can somehow be ‘settled’. The recent official climate report from the US Department of Energy noted that climate models are the primary tool used to project future change in response to higher levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. “Of great concern is the fact that after several decades of the climate modelling enterprise… the range of future warming they produce in response to a hypothetical doubling of CO2 extends over a factor three.” This range of disagreement has not decreased for decades, the five eminent science authors add.
Tittle-tattling Reliable Media is behind the GB News campaign and, egged on by Guardian Central, the anti-science desperation is clear. One GB News contributor described climate change as “rubbish’. Another described it as a “scam”, an opinion recently expressed at the United Nation’s General Assembly by the elected President of the US Government. It might be thought that the scientific process can withstand a few harsh words, but Reliable Media is outraged. It charges that Ofcom has “effectively suspended its accuracy rules on this life-and-death issue”.
Carrington finds room for reporting the fine of £17,000 levied recently by the French equivalent state broadcast regulator Arcom on the centre-Right TV channel CNews. In this case a contributor had dared to air the opinion that climate change was “a lie, a scam”.
The French complaint was made by the activist Eva Morel from QuotaClimat. She stated that:
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.
In an excellent article in Watts Up With That?, Eric Worrall pointed out that the problem with enforced agreement on the ‘facts’ is that in science, “there is no such thing as a fact which cannot be challenged”.
Ofcom rules specifically note that an example of an issue which it considers to be broadly settled is the “scientific principles behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming”. This is plainly anti-science. For a start, the scale of human-caused global warming is a scientific hypothesis (opinion), not a validated theory. Ofcom’s claim is a political notion concocted by state bureaucrats who obviously have little understanding of the language of science and the way it actually works. In fact, Ofcom seems vaguely aware of the stupidity that lies behind its fashionable claim. Carrington reports that it has received 1,221 complaints related to the ‘climate crisis’ since January 2020 and none had resulted in a ruling that the broadcasting code had been breached.
Worrall is withering in his concluding assessment of the shenanigans of activists seeking to quash dissenting scientific voices in public spaces.
My point is, to declare some facts are beyond challenges, 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 somehow have freedom of expression, is utter nonsense.
Reliable Media is a grubby little hard-Left operation. Few details of its finances and funding are available since it was formed as a limited-by-guarantee company to take forward the ‘Just Stop Hate’ and ‘Just Stop Heat’ campaigns. It claims that it is making “climate change denial unprofitable”, and it does this by seeking to destroy the ability of free speech media operations such as the increasingly successful GB News to attract advertisers. If this is its aim, it presumably has good legal advice, although its latest filed accounts to June 2024 suggest money might be tight. A sum of £107,940 is said to be held as cash at bank, but an identical sum is set aside for creditors due within one year. Whatever its financial position, its activities resemble those of the class sneak, running off to teacher to blub about the bigger boys, those who are more confident and entrepreneurial, better at sports and more successful with the girls. As the brilliant comedy song writer Dominic Frisby sang, maybe jokingly, in his composition about ways to stop freaks like Ed Miliband: “We need to bring back school bullying.” Science, he adds, is only discovering the value of it now.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The first refuge of the disingenuous and the liar – Propaganda …
And they’ll call you a xenophobe if you don’t let a ****** **** you to death.
Ooh is this Madlibs? Let’s see… I choose wiener and pork.
Or maybe it’s just mad libs.
Once again the Bandar-log are getting more and more shrill as they see their empire crumbling around them.
“We Just Won“: Trump Gloats After Bill Gates Admits Climate Change Won’t End World
Even Al Gore has moderated his views on climate change. The big-time warmists are backing down.
When you can lo longer sell the big lie
you’ll have to try to sell it the moderate way
if the only other option is to completely abandon.
They can do what they want. Few newspaper readers remember what was written yesterday.
That sad but true fact goes beyond just the newspaper readers. It applies to the population as a whole. Whatever is the newest “shiny” is what gets the attention and in this case alarm, fear, extreme hyperbole gets the eyeballs.
TV advertisement since the 60s and other social mechanisms has reduce the normal attention span to 13 seconds. Scan and scroll as a writer at the Lansing State Journal called it is what is happening. Read the headline and an opening sentence or two and the reader now “knows” all of what was written.
And readers almost never remember what was written many years ago:
The first claim of climate science: The second law of thermodynamics does not work in the atmosphere. Clearly it does so what does this mean? Answers below please!
Nobody is claiming that. What we are claiming is that the 2nd law doesn’t apply to radiation.
The claim that radiation that comes from a cold object can’t be absorbed by a hot object is clearly an unscientific one, not backed by any observation or theory.
But many of those also claim that IR is heat, which it is not.
MW’s words agree with how I remember it. ie If you put a lump of warm Uranium in a hot oven then it won’t stop radiating. Otherwise, a fusion atomic bomb would self-extinguish. I need to think through the fusion bomb thing, but not in a public forum lest I’ll end up on a list.
Oh trust me, you’re already there.
You are right with that.
An object, no matter how hot, can distinguish where the radiation it absorbs comes from.
On top of that, even if it could, it would not have the means to reject the absorption of radiation that comes from a cooler object.
.
“can” ??
More funding is needed to answer this question.
I’ll take Thermodynamics for $1B, Alex!
Had to look it up to make sure I remember the words right “The second law of thermodynamics states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder body to a hotter body, and it introduces the concept of entropy, which measures the disorder of a system.”
I’d been looking for the word “net” but it’s not there. Mechanical engineers (not me) spend more time on that topic than electrical engineers, and it seems to be a subject mostly discussed in engineering classes in US universities – also mentioned in physics but it looked like a passing mention for non-future-physicists in the lecture hall.
I think of the heat source as the sun (hotter) and the heat destination as mostly the ocean (colder) – where is the problem?
The 2nd concludes entropy can only go up. That only makes sense if you are referring to the total entropy of a closed system (keeping in mind the closed system could be the entire universe). To me, that implies ‘net’; you must look at both sides of the equation. The end result is that the net heat can only flow in one direction, from hot to cold. The hot element is losing heat to the cold element faster than being warmed by it, and vice versa. If you only look at one side of the equation you can lay claim to inventing perpetual motion machines, and many have.
I agree with all of that. The absence of the word “net” in definitions of the 2nd on broadly subscribed sources like Wikipedia bothers me. I seem to remember the word “net” in a 1990’s textbook. There must be a good technical reason not to say “net” anymore. I don’t know that reason, and I don’t suspect any conspiracies. I just wonder, what is the reason not to say it? My thought experiment is radiation, ie MW’s “What we are claiming is that the 2nd law doesn’t apply to radiation.” The radiated thing will be a self-propagating electromagnetic field, It is energy emitted with no foreknowledge of what it might strike and therefore cannot tell whether it will strike a hot thing or a cold thing. When it does strike something, radiation can add its energy to the struck thing’s total, which can increase the struck thing’s heat, which can violate the 2nd law? For the 2nd law to hold it seems that -either- the universe must be 100 percent deterministic -or- we need the word “net”.
Remember that the sentence you quote is not the actual 2nd law. The second law is actually several pages full of equations. The sentence is just an English translation of the equations.
It is important to distinguish between a closed system (can exchange energy but not matter with the outside world) and an isolated system (can do neither). The Second Law states that the entopy of an isolated system must always increase with time. The entropy of a closed system can easily decrease with time (think of a bottle of water freezing).
I will have to pull my college text books and look that up.
My recollection of the definition of a closed system might have lapses.
One has to understand the definition of a closed system. No energy input. No energy output. That is not earth. It might be the universe, but we are a long way from finding out about that concept.
Heat is one of those social language, context driven definition, words that can mean anything anyone wants.
In science, heat is a transfer function: the flow of kinetic energy from a high temperature to a low temperature.
The lack of concise scientific definitions is probably the biggest obstacle in understanding earth’s energy systems. It obstructs communications.
“I’d been looking for the word “net” but it’s not there.”
Because it is not needed. Consider two objects, planet mercury and the Sun. The side (always) facing the Sun is warmer than the obverse side, which receives (virtually) no radiation from the Sun, which is cooler than the sunny side.
There is really no measurable “net temperature” on the surface of Mercury, but the second law is always in effect on that planet.
Heat, the flow of thermal energy across a temperature gradient (hot to cold) effected by kinetic collisions of molecules in the flow path, does not transit a vacuum.
The sun does not “heat” the planet in the thermodynamic sense. EM energy is not constrained by thermodynamics as it does not involve KE interactions at the molecular level.
The sun’s EM energy is the primary energy input to earth’s multiple, coupled, energy systems complex.
One has to be versed in electro magnetic fields and waves to understand how the EM radiation from the sun warms the surface of the planet. Or, one can simply fall back on radar skin depth math.
CV watch: Damian Carrington, PhD in geology (so not a science illiterate). Eva Morel, MA in environmental policy following a BA in political science.
_Jim’s first comment above is correct.
For those unfamiliar with him, I’d like to point out that the chap in the “veganism demands” photo is Leo Kearse.
Looks like Leo Kearse is anxiously waiting for his hearse.
Click my link. I think you will be pleased. It’s not his hearse he’s waiting for…
Leo’s a regular at Spiked….
How the middle classes ruined comedy
Leo Kearse joins Snowdon and Slater for the latest episode of Last Orders. Spiked
If the Grauniad did anything other than total orthodoxy I would be surprised. Genuinely. But something caught my eye this morning – from Billy Bunter aka Boris Johnson. Has the man who blamed us for the looming death of the planet via the industrial revolution had a change of heart and mind?
Boris Johnson has warned Kemi Badenoch that the Tories cannot win the next election by “bashing the green agenda”.
…
Speaking to the Smart Society Show podcast, hosted by fund manager Brynne Kennedy and former energy minister Chris Skidmore, Mr Johnson said: “Certainly in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on that. – Daily Express
So, that’s where Skidmore ended up. Talk about an echo chamber.
Damian Carrington… Droning Armani Cat.
Chris Skidmore: BA, modern history (so a better than even chance of being innumerate, thanks to the British education system).
Well, the Tories are now bashing the green agenda – a bit bloody late chaps! – and even if they are, they stand absolutely no bloody chance of winning the next election, largely . . . down to the utter cowardice of Boris himself.
“Smart Society Show podcast”
Can you get more pretentious than that?
Once again, Orwell’s 1984 was prescient.
IT WAS A WARNING, not a PLAYBOOK!
I think Animal Farm fits the Labour party better, although the BB techniques and aspirations are most certainly in there.
But it’s the chaotic, backstabbing dysfunctionality of the party…
Brave new world was way more on-point as a dystopia- people freely and joyfully abandon freedom and privacy. If AH knew Internet would become a thing he would have nailed social media.
Of course brave new world was more point on,
because brave new world was written by the brother of the first president of the brave new world institution UNESCO.
George Orwell was writing about the Soviet-System,
Aldous already knew about the refined version to replace it.
Considering the Great Baitain is already sliding into a smoldering civil war, “Vegans, back to Vega!” could make an excellent slogan to write on the walls.
Yeah! Send them back to Vega in a Vega.
Speaking of CO2 driven AGW being a scienctific “hypothesis”, under the Scientific Method, aren’t all hypotheses supposed to be accompanied by a “NULL hypothesis” also advanced by the proponent?
Guidance please.
I’m not a qualified practioner in this discipline, just a concerned reader.
What is the “official” null hypothesis for human produced CO2 being the post- industrial revolution control knob for all of Earths’ legions of climates?
Logically, the null hypothesis should be… man does not cause climate change, but what a give away…
We examine how the concept of a null hypothesis is being used implicitly and explicitly in the scientific and policy debate on climate change, in the context of scientific hypothesis testing, as a framework for ‘burden of proof’ arguments and policy deliberations, and metaphorically in the context of a polemic. It is argued that the statement of a null hypothesis is not particularly useful in the broader context of the scientific inferences surrounding the topic of the attribution of climate change and also policy decisions. – Nullifying the climate null hypothesis
So, they have discarded the idea of the null hypothesis as ‘not not particularly useful in the broader context of the scientific inferences surrounding the topic of the attribution of climate change‘.
For my money, that tells you all you need to know. In the realm of scientific inquiry, the null hypothesis serves as a foundational concept that underpins any statistical testing and research methodologies. Except climate attribution.
Very informative link.
Thanks for this, it’s a keeper for me.
My take-away on Trenberth’s justification for dismissing any need for application of the Null Hypothesis principle of the classic scientific method is that he thinks –
“well, we’re getting away with the AGW schtick with the politics and the media, and that’s our main game, so why rock the funding boat with inconvenient protocols?”
The CO2 -bashing con artists are Null Hypothesis Deniers. I believe the Null Hypothesis though is the same as it has always been, that there is no real world evidence that man’s CO2 in any way drives climate,nor is there any proof whatsoever that CO2 has ever driven climate, even if it probably does have some effect on it.
The issue being is that CO2 must drive weather first, because weather drives climate.
I haven’t seen the evidence presented for that anywhere. Just circular logic stuff saying that climate drives weather.
They have gone further, they came up with ‘Post Normal Science’ to be used. That says when the facts do not support the hypothesis the hypothesis still stands if the predicted changes are bad enough, just in case its true. So come up with any mad hypothesis and as long as the predicted outcome is a global disaster the funding carries on.
I believe what you’re describing is called the Precautionary Principle.
Technically true but Climate Science is not unique in dispensing with the null hypothesis. Obviously, if the null were true then the article would not have been published, so why bother mentioning it? I’m not saying AGW is good science, I’m just saying its proponents have not committing a unique crime by burying the null.
[anti-democratic] Story tip
Bugs not Buildings…
The Home Builders Federation has fired off a letter to Rachel Reeves warning that extending EU habitat laws to wetlands could damage the economy. Rejoiner Starmer is planning to overrule a Supreme Court’s decision that these EU laws don’t apply to wetlands (Ramsar sites). Meaning spiders and birds could soon be blocking new housing developments…. – Guido Fawkes
I’m sure something happened a few years ago regarding the UK and the EU. ‘Breakfast Exit’, or something? Or was it ‘Breaks It’? I’m sure that was it…
Starmer: “It didn’t happen “
But they HAVE to block new housing, to make sure enough land is available for solar panels and wind turbines. !!
Where are they going to house the hundreds of thousands of people from the Third World who are settling in Britain every year? The Labour Government is already having to evict council tenants to make room for them.
Well since the only subscribers of the Guardian are silly lefties, and their income depends largely on the climate con, both their days are numbered.
Give it some time, bankruptcy doesn’t occur over night
One of the surprising aspects I learned in early adult life was just how long a business can operate without doing anything useful. I’d figured it must be days or at most weeks, but… and then I saw the corpses of dead companies reanimate with decade-scale business cycles.
Whatever it was that made the old news models attractive was clearly weakened by the advent of electronic communication, but the underlying idea feels human. It would be nice to have an official register of “news” written in a way that agrees with my worldview. The old news only has to agree with enough of its subscribership’s worldviews to stumble onward? Seems that way.
You can investigate, but the Guardian is owned by a trust and, perhaps, not much concerned with a return on investment, thus bankruptcy.
Point taken…spanish experience: even lefties get sick and tired of their own BS. So might the Guardian survive economically but not so its subscribers. And if you run out of audience.. well time will tell…
Science can never be settled. Climate changes but is hardly affected by man. Net Zero subsidies achieve nothing but poverty. De – carbonisation is never explained or shown to work. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to stop our using fossil fuels while we develop a good alternative mix of energy systems. The authoritarian approach of explaining nothing and frightening people to encourage an unjustifiable agenda is the modus operandi of The Guardian. It should be exposed.
Not just the Guardian.
Clap louder, or Tinkerbell will die!
Carrington’s likely ancestor was a fine observer. The Carrington Event in 1859 was the first detailed and most important solar flare in recorded history. Now, his descendant is a certified tyrant-moron..
Two things. Number one stop referring to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as climate change. We don’t deny climate change, the climate always changes, we deny CAGW. The other side gains credibility by stating that we deny climate change and the public is left scratching its head in disbelief wondering how anyone could deny that the climate changes. It makes us look like fools. Number two it isn’t at all surprising that the other side wants to halt all discussion on CAGW. We have the science they have no science. If they are put in a position to defend their cause with proper reproducible science they will lose they know that. I am convinced we would take them to the cleaners if they were forced to do the right thing. Censoring us is all they have left in addition to their lying and cheating.
Can’t we ban the Guardian?
No.
Sun Tzu sagely advised –
“keep your friends closed, but keep your enemies closer”
(or was that Vito Corleone?)
The Guardian fulfils two important roles: it is always wrong about absolutely everything, so we can all tell what isn’t going to happen, and it provides laughs for people on the right-hand side of the IQ bell curve.
“If you aren’t allowed to question something then you’re dealing with religion, not science.”
The climate alarmists know they are losing with their narrative or they wouldn’t go to such extremes to silence the realists. They won’t win, the scam has run its’ course. Three decades of lies has caught up to them.
I fervently hope so.
Cross-pollinators (borrowed that from some astute WUWT-er) to Jo’s site likely saw that Naomi Seibt is seeking asylum in the U.S. from the political persecution she is getting in her native Germany.
Let us move with all deliberate speed to accomplish this!