Elsewhere on this website I may have given the impression that scientists are not following proper scientific principles.
Most scientists contributing to IPCC reports and climate science, in general, are earnest, hard-working and meticulous 'proper scientists' and I would not wish to denigrate their valuable work.
But, whether by funding 'blackmail' or ideological conviction, the interpretation of their research appears boxed in by the toxic groupthink constraint of the basic assertion of Climate Change dogma that: "Anthropogenic emissions cause Climate Change and will, if unabated, result in climate breakdown making the Earth unlivable in by humans."
As an illustration, when I first began researching the issues (in 2020) historic incidents (in the last 500 million years) where temperatures and CO2 (and methane) levels had both risen were reported in journals, articles and wikipedia as being 'associated'.
Despite historic proof that CO2 levels rise following warming, modern reports (possible with the 'help' of AI) all assume, as a truth, that any warming is caused by CO2 (or Methane).
Periods of cooling 'associated' with rising CO2 are either not reported or downplayed in more recent reports.
Just as I, because of my 1960s education in Chemistry, find it almost heretical to question Arrhenius - a founding contributor to physical chemistry - modern scientists consider it heretical to question the anthropogenic climate assertion. They have been so indoctrinated that they are completely constrained by the toxic groupthink view on Climate Change.
Whereas my University education also taught me to think and to 'take no one's word for it' (the motto of the Royal Society), this element of education appears lacking nowadays.
A contemporary of Arrhenius, Anders Angstrom questioned Arrhenius's characterisation of Global Warming saying he (Angstrom) believed doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would have a neglible effect on warming.
As Angstom is widely accredited as one of the founders of spectrscopic science (my academic discipline), I like to think I'm following his 'skeptical' lead as both my Cardinal and Emissions-Temp Models shown the same outcome as his experiments.
We certainly need to be mindful of the construction of mathematical models.
Models constructed to predict the future must incorporate 'asumptions' of causation. These assumptions are necessarily arbitrary and subject to political pressure.
The Covid models are a good example of cynical use by politicians who then brag about 'following the science'.
It is not science to build a model containing politically-contaminated assumptions.
Models, like the Cardinal and Emissions-Temp Models, are built to try to understand what is happening in complex physical systems. They do not contain causation assumptions rather relying on multi-variate analysis to characterise what's actually going on.
This approach is not as susceptible to political gerrymandering or unconscious bias as predictive models.
Such gerrymandering (the manipulation of boundaries to favor a specific outcome) is applied to scientific research through intentional manipulation of data, skewing the methodological approach and selected reporting. All to secure a desired conclusion, such as funding, publication, or public attention.
The aim of politicians is generally to get into or remain in a position of power so they can exercise control over 'the masses'. Some may do it because 'they know best' or because they believe in their own superior political views. Some may do it because they like the power or can manipulate their position for gain.
Public trust and respect for politicians is currently (early 2026) at a low ebb. They are not expected to be truthfull, well-motivated or have the interest of the 'masse' at heart.
Many politicians have utopian views of how they think the world ought to be - they are prime candidates to join the Anointed (per Thomas Sowell).
The dogma of 'Climate Change' was fostered by left-wing eco-socialist political conviction. Their founding views include:
This is why the UK has ended up with Net Zero. Not only have we been subjected to neo-marxist governence but also to the governance of spineless globalist non-entities who almost relish the destruction of our UK society.
Even the Climate Change zealots admit that the UK stopping all CO2 emissions will barely register on the global politician's obsessional target of reducing CO2 emissions.
What the Cardinal and Emssions-Temp models show is that not only is it pointless to emiserate the UK by Net Zero but all initiatives to reduce CO2 are pointless.
The current modern warming period may have some anthropogenic causes, but burning fossil fuels is not one of them.
Politicians will not listen to this message as it is not congruent with the governing elites' philosophy.
Of the UK's political parties - the Greens, the Lib-dems and Labour are fully bought into the eco-socialist-fuelled agenda.
The Conservatives (under who's governance Net Zero was passed into law) are talking about slowing down the insane rush towards economic Armageddon.
Reform say they will halt Net Zero but still hold onto the belief that de-carbonisation is a good idea - eventually.
No political party in the UK (and Europe) have made the brave step to recognise the total futility of de-carbonisation.
Only the current US administration is brave enough.
The science proves that it is all, indeed, futile but on this issue the politicians will not 'follow the science'.
AI will only develop a 'consensus' view and will not contribute to critical thinking. AIs are incapable of original skepticism so their use in science should be restricted to simple data analysis and not used for interpretation of results.
AIs can be useful for sorting and ordering huge databases but a properly cynical scientist must control interpretation.
The modern fad of using AIs - and believing what they say - is dangerous.
This may be illustrated by asking Google-AI 'What causes Climate Change?' getting the answer:
The above AI response axiomatically includes the assertion 'it is all due to CO2' with a passing acknowledgement to others gases.
There is no challenge to different (skeptical) views.
The description of 'the Science' is almost comically facile.
Natural influences are acknowledged but trivialised in their importance.
The popular press are complicit in whipping-up climate alarmism. Within the UK, the Guardian is the leading culprit. Other popular media outlets are not far behind. If the original report or academic paper is reasonably balanced, the Guardian will find a way to sensationalise it. Occasionally a Guardian article will contain interesting factual information but by its sensationalising renders these gems hard to find.
To me, the amazing thing is that most people accept the warnings, however often they are repeated. Perhaps the frequency of repeat wears people down to think it must be true.
It was the increasing stridency that alerted me over five years ago to suspect the reporting is belief-driven-drivel.
Formerly reliable scientific reporting from New Scientist, Scientific American, Science and even Nature has become more political than scientific.
I have been reading New Scientist for nearly 70 years but its bias on climate reporting has got ever extreme. It's as though an extreme eco-socialist AI has taken over the reporting. The extreme, alarmist reporting occasionally out-alarms the Guardian.
The more reponsible, balanced mainstream outlets like the Spectator have over the last two to three years reported in a more balanced fashion.
I finish this section with postscript from Matt Ridley published in the Spectator towards the end of 2025.
Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley (born 1958), commonly known as Matt Ridley, is a British science writer, journalist and businessman. He is known for his writings on science, the environment and economics, and has been a regular contributor to The Times newspaper. Ridley is a libertarian, and a staunch supporter of Brexit and was a Conservative hereditary peer from February 2013, with an elected seat in the House of Lords,until his retirement in December 2021.
Ridley is a much more elequent writer than I am and has also, like me, tired of the strident tone of alarmism widespread in climate reporting.
He has an Oxford science doctorate and was one of the few members of the House of Lords to not support UK Net Zero legislation.
Also critical of the Government's handling of the pandemic he has written the 2021 book "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19" with Alina Chan. His science speciality is particularly relevant to a discussion of the Covid pandemic.
It should be noted that Matt Riddley still believes the Greenhouse effect of anthropogenic emissions is real, but modest - as do many scientists.
However, he lacks the detailed science speciality academic background to challenge the 'Direct' calculation (discussed elsewhere).
The following are extracts from his December 2025 article in the Spectator.
“Thankfully, the global warming craze is dying out. To paraphrase Monty Python, the climate parrot may still be nailed to its perch at the recent COP summit in Belem, Brazil – or at Harvard and on CNN – but elsewhere it’s dead. It’s gone to meet its maker, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.’
COP30 achieved less than nothing.
Bill Gates’s recent apologia is just the latest nail in the coffin.
In October, the Net Zero Banking Alliance shut down after JPMorgan Chase, Citi-group, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs led a stampede of banks out of the door. Shell and BP have returned to being oil companies, to the delight of their shareholders. Ford is about to cease production of electric pick-ups that nobody wants. Hundreds of other companies are dropping their climate targets. Australia has backed out of hosting next year’s climate conference.
It has been a long, lucrative ride.
Predicting the eco-apocalypse has always been a profitable business, spawning subsidies, salaries, consulting fees, air miles, bestsellers and research grants.
Different themes took turns as the scare du jour: overpopulation, oil spills, pollution, desertification, mass extinction, acid rain, the ozone layer, nuclear winter, falling sperm counts. Each faded as the evidence became more equivocal, the public grew bored or, in some cases, the problem was resolved by a change in law or practice.
But no scare grew as big or lasted as long as global warming.
I first wrote a doom–laden article for the Economist about carbon dioxide emissions trapping heat in the air in 1987, nearly 40 years ago.
I soon realised the effect was real but the alarm was overdone, that feedback effects were exaggerated in the models.
The greenhouse effect was likely to be a moderate inconvenience rather than an existential threat. (Author's note: Ridley does not dispute the 'Direct' effect of elevated CO2 that the Cardinal Model proves to be an order of magnitude over-estimated. His blasphemy is to doubt the modelling that fuels alarm).
For this blasphemy I was abused, cancelled, blacklisted, called a ‘denier’ and generally deemed evil. In 2010 in the pages of the Wall Street Journal I debated Gates, who poured scorn on my argument that global warming was not likely to be a catastrophe – so it is welcome to see him come round to my view.
The activists who took over the climate debate, often with minimal understanding of climate science, competed for attention by painting ever more catastrophic pictures of future greenhouse warming.
They altered the name to ‘climate change’ so they could blame it for blizzards as well as heatwaves.
Then they inflated the language to ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate crisis’, even as projections of future warming came down.
‘I’m talking about the slaughter, death and starvation of six billion people this century. That’s what the science predicts,’
said Roger Hallam, founder of Extinction Rebellion, in 2019, though the science says no such thing.
‘A top climate scientist is warning climate change will wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years,’
tweeted Greta Thunberg in 2018. Five years later she deleted her tweet and shortly after decided that Palestine was a more promising way of staying in the limelight.
Scientists knew that pronouncements like this were nonsense, but they turned a blind eye because the alarm kept the grant money coming.
Journalists always love exaggeration. Capitalists were happy to cash in. Politicians welcomed the chance to blame others: if a wildfire or a flood devastates your town, point the finger at the changing climate (Climate Change) rather than your own failure to prepare.
Almost nobody had an incentive to downplay the alarm.
Unlike previous scares, climate fear has the valuable feature that it can always be presented in the future tense. No matter how mild the change in the weather proves to be today, you can always promise Armageddon tomorrow. So it was that for four long decades, climate change alarm went on a protracted march through the institutions, capturing newsrooms, classrooms and boardrooms. By 2020 no meeting, even of a town council or a sports team, was complete without a hand-wringing discussion of carbon footprints.
The other factor that kept the climate scare alive was that emissions reduction proved impossibly difficult.
This was a feature, not a bug: if it had been easy, the green gravy train would have ground to a halt. Reducing sulphur emissions to stop acid rain proved fairly easy, as did banning chlorofluorocarbons to protect the ozone layer. But decade after decade, carbon dioxide emissions just kept on rising no matter how much money and research was thrown at the problem.
Cheers!
Switching to renewable energy made no difference – literally. Here’s the data: the world added 9,000 terawatt-hours of energy consumption from wind and solar in the past decade, but 13,000 from fossil fuels. Not that wind and solar save much carbon dioxide anyway, their machinery being made with coal and their intermittency being backed up by fossil fuels.
Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, these two ‘unreliables’ still provide just 6 per cent of the world’s energy.
Their low-density, high-cost, intermittent power output is of no use to data centres or electric grids, let alone transport and heating, and effectively poisons the economics of building and running new nuclear and gas generation by preventing continuous operation.
Quite why it became mandatory among those concerned about climate change to support these unreliables so obsessively is hard to fathom. Subsidy–addiction has a lot to do with it, combined with a general ignorance of thermodynamics.
Now the climate scare is fading, a scramble for the exits is beginning among the big environmental groups. Donations are drying up. Some will switch seamlessly to trying to panic us about artificial intelligence; others will follow Gates and insist that they never said it was the end of the world, just a problem to be solved; a few will even try declaring victory, claiming unconvincingly that promises made at the Paris conference a decade ago have slowed down emissions enough to save the climate.
Of course, Al Gore, the former US vice–president who did more than anybody else to alarm the world about climate change and made a $300 million fortune from it, has been at the recent conference in the Brazilian jungle – the one where they felled a forest to build the access road. As he railed against Gates last month for abandoning the cause and accused him of being bullied by Donald Trump, he sounded like one of those Japanese soldiers emerging from the jungle who did not know the second world war was over.
Perhaps Gore might now regret his exaggerated preachings of hellfire and damnation. In his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, for which he shared a Nobel prize, he predicted a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet ‘in the near future’ – out by around 19 feet and nine inches. In 2009 he said there was a 75 per cent chance all the ice in the Arctic Ocean would disappear by 2014. In that year there were five million square kilometres of the stuff at its lowest point – about the same as in 2009. This year there were 4.7 million square kilometres. At the film’s showing at the Sundance Festival, Gore said that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases were taken within ten years, the world would reach a point of no return. Yet here we are 19 years later.
Gore is correct that fear of retribution from the Trump administration drives some of the corporate retreats.
President Trump has already cancelled $300 billion of green infrastructure funding and purged government websites of climate rhetoric. But even if the Republicans lose the White House in 2028, it will be hard to reflate the climate balloon.
The proportion of Americans greatly worried about climate change is dropping. If Trump takes America out of the 1992 treaty that set up the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change it would require an unlikely two-thirds vote of the Senate to rejoin.
Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish economist who is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and has fought a lonely battle against climate exaggeration for decades, recently explained the shift in public opinion: ‘The shrillness of climate doom also wears down voters. While climate change is a real and man-made problem, constant end-of-the-world proclamations from media and campaigners massively overstate the situation.’
A key figure in the collapse of the Climatocracy is Chris Wright, the pioneer of extracting shale gas by hydraulic fracturing who was appointed by Trump as energy secretary this year.
Wright commissioned a review of climate science by five distinguished academics that set out just how non-frightening the facts of climate change are: slowly rising temperatures, mainly at night in winter and in the north, correspondingly less in daytime in summer and in the tropics where most people live, accompanied by a very slow rise in sea level showing no definite acceleration, minimal if any measurable change in the average frequency and ferocity of storms, droughts and floods – and record low levels of deaths from such causes. Plus a general increase in green vegetation, caused by the extra carbon dioxide.
The climatastrophe has diverted attention from real environmental problems – and cost a fortune.
Indoor air pollution caused by poor people cooking over wood fires because they lack access to gas and electricity kills three million a year. So yes, Gates, influenced by Lomborg and Wright, is correct to say that getting cheap, reliable, clean energy to the poor is by far the more urgent priority.
Fortunately, there is now convenient cover for a change of tack. Artificial intelligence. We would love to go on subsidising wind and solar, say the Germans privately, but if we are to have data centres, we need lots more reliable and affordable power, so we will build gas turbines and maybe even some nuclear.
Likewise, throughout the tech world of the American west coast, emoting about climate suddenly seems like a luxury belief compared with the need to sign contracts with power suppliers mostly burning natural gas – or get left behind in the AI race. The world’s gas glut is impossible to overstate: thanks to fracking, we have centuries’ worth of cheap gas. The tech bros are piling into nuclear, too, but that won’t address the needs for extra power until well into the next decade, and the need is now.
The climatastrophe has been a terrible mistake.
It diverted attention from real environmental problems, cost a fortune, impoverished consumers, perpetuated indoor pollution and poverty, frightened young people into infertility, wasted years of our time, undermined democracy and corrupted science.
Time to bury the parrot.”
A subsequent article by Matt Ridley (Telegraph, 13th Feb 2026) points out that CO2 is simply not a danger to human health, and it’s actively good for crops. The debate about the USA's endangerment finding has always been a political one - enacted by Obama's EPA in 2009 and now rescinded.