Essay by Eric Worrall
“… we are calling for a televised national emergency briefing, so that what happened in Central Hall Westminster can reach the public …”
What we told UK leaders about climate and nature at a national emergency briefing
Published: December 3, 2025 11.03pm AEDT
Paul Behrens
British Academy Global Professor, Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of OxfordI joined eight other experts to deliver a national emergency briefing in late November on the climate and nature to around 1,200 of the UK’s leaders — across politics, business, faith and culture — in Central Hall Westminster.
…
I spoke about food security and the great food transformation that’s needed, including dietary change, waste reductions, production improvements and increased resilience. I explained how more plants in our diets are necessary to reduce climate and nature impacts, improve our health, increase food resilience and reduce reliance on imports.
…
The science was news to many present. The planet is heading into dangerous overshoot above 1.5°C within the next few years. As Anderson pointed out: for the UK to meet its fair share obligations in emissions reductions without relying on highly speculative and costly carbon dioxide removal, we would need to see roughly 13% year-on-year reductions for just 2°C – let alone 1.5°C.
…A just, equitable transition to a clean economy would improve countless aspects of our lives, from creating jobs and improving health to strengthening communities and increasing resilience. We will look back on this moment bewildered that we did not act sooner, if we are able to act in time.
This is why we are calling for a televised national emergency briefing, so that what happened in Central Hall Westminster can reach the public. Anyone can sign this open letter, calling on the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the heads of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, S4C and the media regulator Ofcom, for urgent, honest communication about the scale of the crisis and the solutions available.
Read more: https://theconversation.com/what-we-told-uk-leaders-about-climate-and-nature-at-a-national-emergency-briefing-270992
Just what everyone wants right – even more breathless BBC climate coverage.
Their main website is nebriefing.org, the claim they have collected 39,419 signatures on their petition to pressure broadcasters into carrying their “emergency briefing” at the time of writing this article.
If you look at their youtube channel, it’s pretty obvious why they are demanding national TV coverage. Their viewer numbers for most of their broadcasts are in the low hundreds – the kind of numbers you would expect if friends and family took an interest. Perhaps everyone who wanted to watch was in the hall when they delivered their briefing.
Why are climate scientists being forced to be for TV time? Why aren’t Britons taking more of an interest?
I guess its hard to take an interest in the pontification of comfortable well fed establishment climate scientists, when you are shivering under a blanket in an unheated house, wondering how many meals you’ll have to skip that week to pay the green electricity bill and your kids school expenses – a daily reality which way too many Britons are currently experiencing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate Hysteria masquerading as science for one purpose – To protect their jobs.
It is neither climate hysteria.
It is about the total transformation of society and culture away from existing (in this case English) values via rainbow Islam.
Transformation of economy.
Transformation of food production and even how we eat ( back to potantoes throughout the year and seasonal fruits)
Building back better is also part of it.
They have to freeze and or starve you to death to save you, but not before they rob you blind.
“Traditional” Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe that same sex relations are sinful.
Abraham’s nephew, Lot, supposedly had incestuous relations with his daughters in Sodom, but he blamed his daughters for leading him astray. So he’s OK, I suppose, as he and his daughters were of different sexes.
Just a bit of humour to lighten the mood. As Thomas Jefferson said “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Peoples’ past and present actions may effect me. The future is unknowable, so I make assumptions about it.
So far, so good. Maybe I’ve been lucky, and avoided the pernicious effects of rainbow Islam.
Incest is fine – so long as it is kept in the family.
Are , my lector Hannibal strikes again.
I’m aware that gay relations are sinful throughout the abrahamic religions – except for the Sabbattean-Frankist;but they have been banned.
The Rainbow Islam is a reference to the Paradox that both , why on the polar opposite appear now in huge numbers to tear the societal fabric down
and that the scenario is so controlled that the gays go against their own conservative people and culture but kiss the butts of muslims who dispise gays 100* more and are 1000* more conservative.
And on top of that, real rainbow muslims, who absolutely do not exist in real islam; but the handful of them who exist are somehow politicians in western countries.MamDani,illhen Omar,Saddick Khan – who are there to create the fake reality of tolerant western compatible islam with their fake abortion/gay etc tolerance.
That’s fine with me, as the ONLY news TV channel I/we watch is GB News and they were not included.in that list.
I’m sure skeptics will be given an equal prime time slot for rebuttal.
If only.
You must understand their suffering.
They only have 100% of climate TV time in favor of their cause.
That’s simply not enough.
Not a hope in hell with that on the BBC.
They aren’t climate scientists. They are climate activists.
Demand? Shouldn’t skeptics ‘demand’ time as well? How about the debate that they’ve been refusing? Shouldn’t we get a debate? They’re running scared and it’s good to watch them unravel.
…for the UK to meet its fair share obligations in emissions reductions without relying on highly speculative and costly carbon dioxide removal, we would need to see roughly 13% year-on-year reductions for just 2°C – let alone 1.5°C.”
UK emissions are too small to have any effect whatsoever on CO2-affected global temperature. Other nations, particularly China and India, are not doing their “fair share” and have no intention of doing so. So why is the UK insistent on tilting at this windmill? No sense whatsoever.
Even during the Holocene Earth has seen higher temperature when trees could grow much closer to the poles and much higher up the mountain. So what has global temperature to do with CO2 ? Or do we really think that the higher surface temperature on Venus is because of CO2?
Now tell us about Glacier Bay, Robert . . . and what the hell can catastrophists say in reply?!!
As mad red Ed will tell you we are setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. We are world leaders!
It is a serious untruth when these authors self-describe as “scientists”.
They have failed to follow the guidance of the Scientific Method.
They present their ideas as certainties, when numerous dissenting articles demonstrate that high uncertainty is present.
They fail to adequately address the many views that are counter to theirs.
They call for the authority of peer review in prestige journals, then use the lofty-sounding Hall of Westminster for an oral presentation.
They use numbers wrongly, such as incoming targets of 2 and 1.5 deg C for decreases in manmade global warming, knowing that these numbers were plucked from the air in an informal conversation between some German climate activists.
They fail to put uncertainty estimates on those temperatures.
Several more serious accusations could follow.
It is serious enough to demand an investigation into fraudulent conduct by these authors. Their repeated inability to admit to use of invented numbers, when measured numbers should be used, and are sometimes known, is indicative of fraudulent science. The association of the authors with employers severely implicated in the Climategate emails also points to a history of fraudulent misrepresentation.
The costs to the many nations who have instituted economic policies because of the thrust of “science” from some of these authors has been to their national detriment. The costs are high and ongoing but based on unverified assumptions from green dogma.
Never forget, never forgive, prosecute.
Geoff S (hard scientist).
“It is a serious untruth when these authors self-describe as “scientists”.”
I ‘self-describe’ as a Kangaroo [ because I enjoy a good jump (:-)) ]
But that doesn’t make me one.
On that basis, I could self-describe as a camel. ! 😉
Or a hairy-nosed wombat, who eats roots shoots and leaves. Close relative of the Australian drop bear, I believe, who sometimes eats afterwards.
I just got back from Australia, and didn’t see a single drop bear! I was promised drop bears. I want a refund!
Does that mean you can drink enough for 3 days in one go or that you just like a good hump?
Maybe embrace the concept of “and”
🙂
Fraizer, maybe he could follow the example of a “7 day bricked up camel” to increase the former. However, the humping ability might be severely affected by tears in the eyes.
Preferably a bactrian camel. They have two!
I self-describe as an NBA superstar. Where are my tens of millions $s?
Sparta, would you like me to email you a copy of a blank sheet which identifies as a hundred million dollar bill?
“Never forget, never forgive, prosecute.”
I was with you all the way until I read that, Geoff. I think we always need to be willing to forgive even our worst enemies and the most heinous of criminals, because otherwise we are refusing to release ourselves, as well as them, from the sense of grievance that we are nursing against them. I think that is a maladaptive response to the situation, because it binds us into a self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing cycle of conflict, not just with the perceived perpetrator/s but also within ourselves. Who wants to live in perpetual conflict with their own self?
Once we get into such a vicious cycle of recrimination and the ego-demand for restitution, it can be very hard to get out of it again. The only way of getting out of it that I can see is through forgiveness.
What, no mention of China and India and others rapidly increasing coal burning? If they really want a world wide reduction, then why the hell don’t they mention these nations? Why doesn’t the whole bunch of them fly over there immediately to put such demands on those nations?
Without China and India there would be a shortage of everything. Most stuff we buy is made over there. We don’t want to depend on cheap Russian energy but without China and India most people in the UK would have to go bare foot and naked. And a lot of that stuff is made using cheap Russian energy.
They don’t fly over there ‘cos they know that if they spouted their rubbish over there they would be locked up and the key thrown away.
I apologise for my country.
The UK is still suffering from a mind virus.
It is very embarrassing.
Here in the USA we’ve Mad Cow disease in the MSM for some time now.
You can watch an example of it on “The View”.
Cows ain’t that stupid and fat.
Ahhh… you have never heard the “Mad Cow” mooing ! Totally deranged. !
FYI, “Mad Cow” is the nickname for that ugly, reprehensible and disgusting thing on TV, with last name “Maddow”
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
For a UK temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-kingdom/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in long table. Here is the temperature data for the two dates:
Year—–Tmax—–Tmin—–Tavg.
2024—-12.9——-6.9——–9.9
1901—-11.8——-4.7——–8.2
Chng.–+1.1——+2.2——+1.7
After 123 years, the UK has undergone a slight warming of 1.7° C., which might be due to the reduction of air pollution since the 1950’s.
What needs to be determined is the value of the natural variations of temperature from year to year for the 123 last years for Tmax and Tmin. These could be computed from the Tmax and Tmin data in the long table, but I do not know how to do the calculation. A plot of the Tmax and Tmin data would be nice, but I do not know how to do this.
In1900, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 295 ppmv
(0.58 g CO2/cu. m.), and by 2024, it had increased to 422 ppmv
(0.83 g CO2/cu. m). There is just too little CO2 in the air to cause any warming of the air, and there is no need to worry about the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels or the 68 million kilograms of CO2 exhaled every day by the humans of the UK.
After EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin rescinds the Endangerment Finding of 2009 for CO2, what ever will Mad Ed do?
. . . or which is more likely to be due to improper siting of temperature monitoring stations, uncorrected urban heat island effects, and reporting of data from non-longer-existing and just plain made-up stations. I have on very good authority that the Met Office has had some problems in these regards.
These recent references:
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/15/simple-foi-requests-for-data-said-to-back-non-existent-temperature-stations-refused-on-vexatious-grounds-by-uk-met-office
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/09/16/met-office-shock-uk-temperature-network-goes-from-bad-to-even-worse-in-just-18-months
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/06/met-office-deletes-huge-chunks-of-historic-temperature-data-after-fabrication-claims
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/11/18/new-freedom-of-information-request-and-the-uk-met-office-has-to-rewrite-its-temperature-explanations-again
Extreme Weather Watch uses NOAA’s temperature data base. Presumably, NOAA has checked the raw data for accuracy, adjustments, and homogenization.
For day temperature checks,+/- 1° C or F is good enough for me.
Well, a quick check of NOAA’s website (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global ) reveals the statement that:
“Temperature anomalies are provided by NOAA’s Global Surface Temperature Analysis (NOAAGlobalTemp), which uses comprehensive data collections of increased global coverage over land (Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly) and ocean (Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature) surfaces.”
In turn, the hyperlinked website https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly states (my bold emphasis added:
“The Global Historical Climatology Network monthly (GHCNm) dataset provides monthly climate summaries from thousands of weather stations around the world. . . . The period of record for each summary varies by station, with the earliest observations dating to the 18th century. Some station records are purely historical and are no longer updated, but many others are operational and provide short time delay updates that are useful for climate monitoring.”
Those statements lead me to conclude that NOAA does not have its own temperature monitoring stations in the United Kingdom (or similarly in other countries around the world) but instead just incorporates data provided by “official” meteorology/weather stations established and “maintained” (hah!) by those countries themselves . . . in the case under discussion, that would of course be the Met Office for the UK.
I presume that NOAA does not have the money, manpower, time or detailed information required to double-check the veracity/quality of all of the data coming in monthly from nations outside the US, but instead just accepts such on face value. Of course I could be wrong . . . but in this case I doubt it.
That’s exceptionally modest. I salute your humility.
From what I have seen and read, the Met Office seems to be concocting data and using sites it must know are highly dubious and unreliable, to DELIBERATELY fabricate a warming trend.
I have checked the BoM ACORN-SAT site and found that there is a file that lists for a weather station the location history, the adjustments and homogenization of the raw temperature data. I was looking for recent data Alice Springs but could not find it.
When I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/alice-springs/average-temperature-by-year, I got Tmax and Tmin data from 1879 to 2024. The file uses data from two weather stations. Here is a summary:
Alice Springs International Airport: 1942 to 2024
Year—–Tmax——Tmin—–Tavg Temperatures are ° C
2024—–30.6——–14.3—–22.4
1942—- 29.5——–13.9—–21.7
Chng—-+1.1——–+0.4—–+0.7
Old Post Office: 1879 to 1941
Year——Tmax—–Tmin—–Tavg
1941——27.8——12.7——20.3
1879——28.8——11.9——20.3
Chng—– -1.0——+0.8——–0.0
From 1879 to 1941, the was no change in Tavg which means the increasing concentration of CO2 in air caused no warming at the Old Post Office. This data is sufficient to falsify the claim by the IPCC that CO2 cause warming of air and hence global warming.
From 1942 to 2025, Tavg increased by only 0.7° C. It can be concluded that CO2 cause no warming of air at Alice Springs.
In 1879 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 280 ppmv.
One cubic meter of this air had 0.55 g of CO2 at STP. In 2024 the concentration of CO2 was 424 ppmv. One cubic meter of air this air has mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.83 g of CO2.
But once NOAA “homogenise”, ie “torture” the Alice Springs data into the graph they want…
.. the warming becomes obvious….. but TOTALLY FAKE
Ah, another worthless opinion just as valuable as mine.
10 years ago I had an argument online with regular poster at WUWT, who later defected to the CAGW camp at Berkeley, pointing out that while it might be a useful first approximation for some purposes (Tmax + Tmin)/2 does not equal + Tavg and that modern instrumentation can produce much more accurate Tavg. I was told told that climate scientists still used the old formula to be consistent with earlier records.
Mr. Pierce makes his point strongly without the need to bring in a probably spurious Tavg.
He joined 8 people in a bid to scare people witless.
We have more than our fair share of lunatics.
“The science was news to many present. ” I really doubt that anyone has not heard of “The science” at this point.
I have been looking for it for decades and have not found any science.
It took about a century and a half for witch burnings to decline in Germany…as fewer members of the public started believing that so many women could be practicing witchcraft. Looks like we’re only a quarter of the way through the CC/CO2 apocalypse fad….
All women are practising witchcraft that’s a fact. Every married man knows that. But that’s no reason to burn them.
It is not?
I’m not familiar with British TV rules/practices concerning running commercials adjacent to, or during, broadcast programs, but I am curious if the call for a televised national emergency briefing from Paul Behrens and his claimed “eight other experts” would permit commercials for, say, petrol-fueled emergency electrical generators or CO2 fire extinguishers to handle said emergency conditions?
/sarc
Or the use of CO2 to put the sparkle in soda pop, beer, and sparkling wines. And to leaven baked goods such as bread, cakes and donuts.
I noticed this claim, yet again:
“I spoke about food security and the great food transformation that’s needed, including dietary change, waste reductions, production improvements and increased resilience. I explained how more plants in our diets are necessary to reduce climate and nature impacts, improve our health, increase food resilience and reduce reliance on imports.”
Again with the “more plants”. I’m not sure what ratio of plant to animal caloric intake is considered appropriate, but this sounds like another European knee-jerk twitch response, as if eating a little less meat would matter. Over here in the US and Canada, we have millions of square miles of land that beef cattle graze on that wouldn’t be suitable for other forms of agriculture without truly massive amounts of irrigation. We also have our own loony ideas. The governor of California thinks that banning gasoline lawn mowers will somehow save the planet…
In D.C,. VA, and MD is is leaf blowers, too.
I think they should be given free tv time but then we also get free tv time. We will need more time however because they are wrong on so many things it will take a while to list them all. Losing is an ugly thing just look at them.
“free”
So what the UK needs is more population from 3th world nations to fight climate change ?
Only joking – it jumped out at me for some reason.
I would love to follow each around all day and call out their HYPOCRISY when they use fossil fuels.
Leftists are DELUDED – and as VDH says, they never think they will be subject to their own policies.
Help, our jobs are in danger !
What a vomit-inducing collection of nothing-words.
No Paul, we don’t want that at all. The only honest communication you ought to make isthis: there is no crisis.
These are the same types who try to stress the importance of keeping the COPs going; i.e., so that they can get taxpayer-funded trips with all expenses paid to some exotic destination without having to show any positive results at the end. These are also people who have some sorts of investments in green products or technologies, and they see they’re actually losing money on them because of poor sales. Another group that wants to exaggerate the climate crisis narrative is made up of theorists and academics who worry that their funding and jobs may dry up if the whole issue is revealed as largely fraudulent. So naturally they would turn to a climate crisis outlet like the BBC to make a big deal out of what is being increasingly identified as a scam.
A sham, since these quacks and the BBC work for the same special interests.
That “special interest” seems to be the complete destruction of UK society !!
Only a % of the One World Order is UK special interests.
It’s an emergency alright…. for their credibility and jobs.
Story tip
Here is their other emergency…
Greenpeace Asks a Dutch Court to Reverse an American VerdictThe group wants to use European law as a shield to disrupt American infrastructure projects.By Michael Toth
Dec. 5, 2025 WSJ
I recall that Greenpeace interfered with the construction of an oil pipeline and caused damage to it. The pipeline company sued Greenpeace and won a claim for 350 million dollars. If this judgement is allowed to stand, Greenpeace will have to file for bankruptcy and will be out the environment business in the USA. Good riddance.
The europeans believe they are separate from the world as a whole and will be able to get to the promised land if all EU countries just implement non elected bureaucrats policies. It is the remainer of the arrogant superior feeling european colonial moral highground mindset.
It’s getting cold up there..
Funded in part with penalties and fees on US tech companies.
Just like the US being funded in part by penalties and fees on foreign banks, financial institutions, car imports, and pretty well all other imports. The US doesn’t care about overseas laws or conventions. Murders citizens and non-citizens outside the US without benefit of trial – and boasts about it.
The US slaughters survivors of an attack on a boat outside US waters without mercy.
The US can give it, but complains about getting it back.
Diddums.
Only if we can use their statements as evidence to pursue a charge of scientific fraud against them!