The climate emergency is a threat to democracy

Environmentalism has resurged since 2016 as an elite response to the populist challenge.

Tim Black

Tim Black

One week, it’s that old Malthusian David Attenborough telling us ‘the moment of crisis has come’. The next it’s that young Malthusian Greta Thunberg telling us ‘our house is still on fire’ and ‘inaction is fuelling the flames’.

Both express the key elements of today’s environmentalist script. The shrill tone. The end-is-nigh urgency. The act-now-or-else command. And underwriting this script, as ever, is the core idea of contemporary environmentalism — namely, the climate emergency. This is the idea that so imminent and ‘existential’ is the threat of climate change that world leaders need to act as if they are at war. They need to declare a state of emergency. There’s no time for deliberation or debate anymore, because, well, ‘our house is on fire’. In this state of emergency, all civil liberties and democratic freedoms can be suspended. All dissent and debate silenced. Only then will the authorities, using all force necessary, be able to do what needs to be done to protect us from the enemy. It just so happens that this enemy happens to be us, and our all-consuming passions.

This wartime analogy has long lurked on the deep-ecological fringes of the environmentalist movement. It crops up, for instance, in James Lovelock’s 2009 broadside, The Vanishing Face of Gaia. He writes that surviving climate change ‘may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government for the duration of the survival emergency’.

But only now has it entered the mainstream. So, in May last year, the Guardian revised its style guide, stating that ‘instead of “climate change”, the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown”’. That same month, the UK became the first nation state to declare a climate emergency, days after similar declarations from Scotland and Wales. In June, New York City became the world’s largest city to declare a climate emergency. And then, in November, the European Parliament, with new Commission president Ursula von der Leyen leading the charge, did likewise, for the EU. Little wonder Oxford Dictionaries made ‘climate emergency’ its word of the year.

Not everyone has been quite as keen to embrace the emergency rhetoric. In November, a few MEPs from the European Parliament’s largest bloc, the European People’s Party, struck a note of caution amid the EU’s clamour for a declaration of climate emergency. They were worried that the language was just a little too redolent of Nazi-era Germany.

Which is understandable. The Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People, issued on 28 February 1933, permitted the suspension of the democratic aspects of the soon-to-disappear Weimar Republic, and legally sanctioned the Nazis’ suppression and persecution of political opponents. That, after all, is what states of emergency tend to entail: a clampdown on civil and democratic freedom in the interests of preserving the state against a perceived existential threat. And that is what the climate emergency entails, too.

It raises a few questions. Given the unpleasant, brown-shirted whiff steaming off the idea of a climate emergency, why are political and cultural elites in the EU, the UK and the US so willing to embrace it? And, more pertinently, why now?

It cannot be fully explained by reference to the state of the environment, no matter how devastating the Australian bushfires, or destructive the floods in northern England. For there is always more to environmentalism than environmental challenges. And the ‘more’ in this case is the seismic shift in the post-2016 political landscape. It is a landscape in which Western elites find themselves mortally threatened, not so much by climate change, but by those they can blame for it – the people. And this is precisely why climate change has resurged as an issue over the past few years, and why the profoundly anti-democratic idea of a climate emergency lies at its heart. Because it is being mobilised against the populist threat.

The shift in tone of the climate-change issue is marked. When environmentalism last enjoyed its moment in the blazing Sun, in the mid-2000s, it was still of course a catastrophist narrative. It could hardly have been otherwise, given its anti-Enlightenment, Malthusian origins. But the approach was condescendingly scientistic rather than shrill and panic-stricken. The truth was ‘inconvenient’, rather than compelling. An IPCC report would offer a ‘very likely’ range of future scenarios, rather than offer a singularly ‘scary’ warning. But then environmentalism preached to estranged, often understandably bored electorates, rather than recalcitrant, restive ones.

This patronising, scientistic tone reflected environmentalism’s political, ideological function, as a legitimising gloss painted on to Western political elites’ administration of things. It was the handmaiden of technocracy and managerialism. It allowed post-Cold War elites to disavow modernity, justify long-term economic stagnation, and provide their Third Way governance with a semblance of purpose.

The financial crash and subsequent economic crisis was to sideline environmentalism. From 2008 onwards, justifying economic stagnation no longer needed a green dressing. It could become, as ‘austerity’, a policy and ideology in its own right. Hence, from the UK to the crisis-ridden eurozone, politicians of all stripes now talked of fiscal responsibility, of cutting back and consuming less.

2016 changed everything. The populist challenge to the political classes of Europe and the US, which had been stirring for a while, erupted in the form of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as US president. And environmentalism resurged in response. It had always served as a way of managing the public, of justifying the political class’s mode of governance. Now it could serve as a way of quelling the populist challenge. Of diminishing people’s democratic aspirations. Of suppressing the rejection of technocracy and managerialism. After all, what is politics – or ‘taxes or Brexit’ – beside the climate emergency?

Climate activists, a uniformly bourgeois bunch as opposed to Brexit as they are to Trump voters, have rallied. Rising Up!, the group that was to launch Extinction Rebellion in 2018, staged its first ‘action’ in November 2016. And the teachers’ pets of the Climate Strike movement began theirs in the summer of 2018.

Sometimes they have positioned themselves explicitly against Brexit, or Trump. But often they don’t need to. Their climate-emergency message does the job implicitly, functioning, as it does, as an all-purpose means to diminish and even suppress the democratic ambitions of the revolting masses.

Little wonder, then, that environmentalism is so central to the preservation of the status quo today. The climate emergency is the elites’ response to the populist challenge. It represents the suspension of people’s democratic aspirations. The suspension of politics. But, as has been demonstrated ever since 2016, the populist challenge resists suspension.

Tim Black is a spiked columnist.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Dodgy Geezer

25th January 2020 at 8:16 pm

“…..The climate emergency is a threat to democracy……”

Is there NOTHING that climate change can’t cause?

Charlie Ross

27th January 2020 at 9:26 pm


nick hunt

25th January 2020 at 3:35 pm

Environmentalism ‘had always served as a way of managing the public’? No way; like the counter-cultural revolution of the 60s, environmentalism was bottom-up, not top-down. The public and popular culture cared for nature first, not governing elites. Read up on the long history of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to see how culture is upstream of politics. Only decades later did western governments start accepting green ideas, and only later still did leftist movements, much criticised and outflanked themselves by greens initially, harness the moral force and concern of the greens as a reaction to populism.

Mike Watson

25th January 2020 at 3:05 pm

It’s regrettable that the Climate Change of Doom cult has devolved to the point where they are now using a disturbed child to spread their propaganda. Do they really think she is helping their cause?

Windy Srx

30th January 2020 at 11:22 am

They do. And she is. Except when she unwittingly announces a THREE YEAR COOLING PHASE!

R Rodd

25th January 2020 at 4:36 am

What I find strange is that the Labour Party has been banging on about the Conservative Party’s austerity programs for years but they fully support efforts to combat AGW, which will result in much worse, and permanent, austerity.


24th January 2020 at 11:45 pm

VEN OODS. I was politely pointing out that maybe, just maybe the Black Plague in 1665 was caused by migration in Europe as they have to excrete too. Doomsday worms in local faeces breed with foreign ones did kill off quite a lot people. So we better watch out for sewage’s mixing manures to farms and gardens before the horrible smelly pong virus jumps on pets “licking” their masters to death. Ho hum, here it come!

Jerry Owen

25th January 2020 at 10:39 am

Rats caused the plague.


25th January 2020 at 5:27 pm

Yes, the year of the rats that migrated from China. Modern rats are internationalists excreting their faeces down the toilet to environmentally aware sewages with money making schemes converting toxic manure for experimental genetically modified farms growing foods to make everyone vomit blood and diseases down the toilet again. Vicious cycle.

Jerry Owen

26th January 2020 at 12:32 am

Whatever !


24th January 2020 at 10:17 pm

Down with this sort of thing.

bfbfbf Fullerton

24th January 2020 at 9:06 pm

Why am I being shadow banned

bf bf

24th January 2020 at 8:40 pm

If you would like a inexhaustible supply of FACT that destroy the CO2 / climate change B.S then you need to watch Tony Hellers YouTube channel.
He uses all the science from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a treasure trove of historical information that explains how and why data is manipulated / changed or simply hidden (memory holed) and the agenda(s) behind it all. People defame him all the time (mostly Ad hominem) but non have proved him incorrect.

Gerard Barry

24th January 2020 at 4:44 pm

Excellent article. The frightening thing about climate change hysteria is how many “ordinary” middle-class people are on board with it. Why can’t people think for themselves?

Jerry Owen

24th January 2020 at 5:54 pm

When mummy can’t pick up little Tarquin and Henrietta from school approximately 200 yards from her home in her 4×4 in which she has the seat six inches away from the steering wheel, the middle class may change their view !!

Gerard Barry

24th January 2020 at 7:45 pm

I hope so.

Aunty Podes

24th January 2020 at 11:30 pm

I strongly believe that there is a silent majority who do, in fact, think for themselves and see through the hysteria. I believe the election of Trump and the achievement of BREXIT confirms that majority.
The trouble is that the sneering superiority of the left and their endeavours to close-down opposition to their agenda has, to a degree, achieved its aim.
Those who differ have been misled into believing they are a minority who, should they voice their opinion, will be laughed at and vilified. Well – take courage – voice your opinion – you will find that those other “quiet” people around you will respond with their support.
It is reality and truth which are important – and not being “PC” – which is a fraud!

Gerard Barry

25th January 2020 at 4:20 pm

It all depends on what kind of circles you move in though. As a young(ish) educated man, I’m surrounded (at work, for instance), by left-green “liberal” types who are as pro-establishment as they come. I live in Germany by the way, too, a country not exactly known for having a population that can think for themselves! I’m scared shitless of expressing the “wrong” opinion, in case I’ll be thought less of for it.

Ven Oods

24th January 2020 at 4:21 pm

An interesting take on the sudden enthusiasm for ’emergency’ rather than ‘change’. And it does help explain why all these supposed responsible adults are happy being lectured at by an underdeveloped schoolgirl. It doesn’t have to make sense if it fits in with an agenda.

Gerard Barry

24th January 2020 at 4:50 pm

“So, in May last year, the Guardian revised its style guide, stating that ‘instead of “climate change”, the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown”’.”

Let me get this straight: the Guardian doesn’t allow its journalists to use the words they want to use and which they think are appropriate? How can anyone take that publication seriously anymore?


24th January 2020 at 5:08 pm

Does anybody take the Guardian seriously anymore?

I’m inclined to suspect that the movement of news and information online has forced a fundamental change on purveyors of the news, in that they are learning that they have no future unless they restrict themselves to preaching to the converted. While it is good, and healthy, to be exposed to opinions which one disagrees with few of us are prepared to do it voluntarily. (I rarely do these days.) So newspapers, broadcasters and websites are tending to become less, rather than more, diverse in the material they disseminate. The management of the Guardian have appreciated this, and are carving out some sort of niche for themselves by endlessly regurgitating the same witless, woke, pro-EU, anti-Trump, dross.

David George

24th January 2020 at 5:18 pm

The Guardian is “Lead Media Partner” of 170 “news” outlets that have signed up to push the climate change narrative. There’s no possibility of contrary (or even moderate) facts or opinion being published; if their going to be so utterly partisan in one area it’s pretty certain they’re happy to indulge in it elsewhere. Avoid!
Here is a full list of the signed up propagandists committed to misinforming, misleading and terrifying us into submission.

Jerry Owen

25th January 2020 at 10:42 am

On which day did the Guardian realize it was a ‘catastrophe’ and not ‘change’?
Does this mean their predictions are somewhat short sighted?

James Knight

24th January 2020 at 4:20 pm

Even if all of the warming of the past half century was due to CO2, it still would not justify the draconian actions proposed, certainly not the climate austerity and climate dictatorship a bunch of infantile school kids and even more infantile crusties are clamouring for.

William East

24th January 2020 at 8:25 pm

The fact is that the global temperature has risen by only 1.05 Celcius degrees in the last 200 years. World temperatures vary between minus 60C and plus 50C. The rise in the last 200 years is therefore not statistically significant, but the new religion demands that we all believe. The rise in human population, which has quadrupled in my lifetime is more significant, but no one mentions this presumably as it would offend superstitious folk like the Pope and Ayatollahs.

sihit sihit

24th January 2020 at 4:07 pm

Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here>→→→→→

Forlorn Dream

24th January 2020 at 12:32 pm

Yep, that just about hits the nail on the head.

I’d add that it’s also a good way to take our money too.

K Tojo

24th January 2020 at 11:35 am

Is it a legacy of Judeo-Christian morality that educated Westerners are so eager to display their intelligence and sensitivity by confessing guilt for all the world’s ills on behalf of their people?

The other side of that coin, naturally, is to condemn those brutish and insensitive Westerners who refuse to examine their consciences and hang their heads in shame. They will be called the deniers.

Jerry Owen

24th January 2020 at 11:07 am

Couldn’t agree more with this article, a better analysis than Tom Slater’s who seems to think that capitalism has a moral crisis.. no it doesn’t and never will, capitalism is brutal and can only survive by being brutal.
I now believe that the cult of AGW is far more dangerous to western civilization than any Islamic terrorism we may suffer.
There is so much science indeed simple bullet points that blows the AGW zealots away, and they have no valid scientific response. Yet the science of the AGW zealots has never been, is not, and never will be forth coming.
Many come here to denounce these articles saying the science is on their side yet when challenged .. not one of them, not one comes up with their debate winning science, I welcome a debate but they refuse. They are either frit or gullible.

Jeandarc Breon

24th January 2020 at 5:06 pm

To be honest, I have the slight opposite problem. There’s a distinct like of detail in these anti-environmentalism articles, which undermines their credence. It’s all opinion statements presented as facts without anything to actually back them up to prove the point. They may have a point, but they don’t put enough meat on the bones to truly judge. It’s like a print version of the shock-jock. Does it really make sense to throw all environmentalism sentiment into one basket? What does Spiked think humanity should do about climate change. Does it even perceive it as a problem at all?

Jerry Owen

26th January 2020 at 12:33 am

Climate change is natural.

bf bf

24th January 2020 at 10:50 am

If you would like a inexhaustible supply of FACT that destroy the CO2 / climate change B.S then you need to watch Tony Hellers YouTube channel.
He uses all the science from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a treasure trove of historical information that explains how and why data is manipulated / changed or simply hidden (memory holed) and the agenda(s) behind it all. People defame him all the time (mostly Ad hominem) but non have proved him incorrect.

bf bf

24th January 2020 at 3:33 pm

My comment are still awaiting moderation…. Why

Jonathan Yonge

24th January 2020 at 10:35 am

Its time to do a FOX! on Davos,, but we can still borrow Rachel C. Boyle’s brilliant oratory by starting with : “Lets call it what it is….”

Davos is a meeting place for business men and politicos to further their careers.
Nothing more and nothing less.
They don’t give an f-word for the ‘good causes’ they espouse, they simply use them as ‘JetBait’ to cover their hypocrisy.
In fact. They are devaluing the very causes they pretend to promote.

Davos has become a counter-signal for virtue. Only the stupid do not see this.

nick hunt

24th January 2020 at 1:45 pm

Surely it must irk Greta and noble leftist rebels generally to know they are part of the establishment elite which opposes Trump and thus democracy?


24th January 2020 at 5:12 pm

Why? Is there any evidence that any of the ER types have any enthusiasm for democracy? (Greta can hardly be expected to, she is too young to understand why it matters so, poor thing.)

Hugh Bryant

24th January 2020 at 9:32 am

Remind me. Who was it said:

“There must be nothing outside the state. And the state must always be in crisis.”


24th January 2020 at 5:18 pm

Okay, the first bit is Mussolini. But: ‘And the state must always be in crisis’ I don’t recognise and haven’t been able to google. I rather like it, as it seems the sort of mantra that an authoritarian system could use to maintain itself, so I’d be glad if somebody could enlighten me.


24th January 2020 at 10:19 pm

Was it Rebecca Wrong Daily?

Jerry Owen

25th January 2020 at 10:46 am

Nobody said that as far as I am aware.

Steve Roberts

24th January 2020 at 9:01 am

A brilliant piercing polemic of an article. This is a serious wake up call.
“…why are political and cultural elites in the EU, the UK and the US so willing to embrace it? ”
Black describes possible emergency actions that we will not likely see implemented any time soon en masse, but the elites are managerialists of the highest order, preparation to a threat to the status quo have to be prepared for, the threat of populism from the citizens is the crisis of the elites not the climate crisis.
The questions we need to be asking , beyond the Johnson “love in” – as if all politics is now over – is why are the political elites being embraced so relatively enthusiastically, or more precisely the CUP, part of that is i suppose the celebration of the demise of the LP, but it needs to be understood this is not simply about partisanship, the threat to democracy and society more widely is the political class and established order more generally, the status quo that the CUP are now unopposedly in charge of managing.
If we ever leave the institutional clutches of the EU, the supranational body that still has jurisdiction over us, it is vital to understand that is only one part of the antidemocratic forces of the elites that are a threat to society, the enemy we can deal with is at home, our own indiginous establishment.
Where is the political force or party that opposes all this authoritarian environmentalism that poses such a threat as Black identifies ? Exactly, it doesn’t exist, it is pursued – with the temporary and opportunistic objection of Trump – with glee by the entire mainstream.
It is easy to identify, ridicule and castigate the loonier elements like ER and their many pretender hippy types, the “leftists” etc, they are the tip of the iceberg, the more serious dangers are those elites in power throughout the globe that sanction, support, impose and encourage this new religion.
Which as ever leaves us with the question what do we do about these elites, why do we support them, whatever party they are in,the lesser evil?

Stephen J

24th January 2020 at 8:56 am

I reckon that those that lead this climate emergency are deliberately confusing two different issues, the purpose of which is to insinuate the nastiest forms of socialism into our political sphere, in order to pursue their ill thought out garbage philosophy.

Unfortunately, this message seems to be easily digested by a substantial proportion of the population.

The first is that the planet is a very complicated and dynamic analogue system, it has been merrily fizzing away for some say as long as four and a half billion years, and it really doesn’t care about human beings, this is James Lovelock’s Gaia.

The second is that we human beans have created economic systems during the last couple of thousand years, that might protect and even advance the human condition, but really have nothing to do with the machinations of the planet itself.

No, those systems can lead to over-production and to unnecessary duplication, even though under the concept of competition, such duplication usually leads to a combination of lower prices and novel modifications by way of improvement… progress.

It is the over-production, the lowering of manufacturing quality merely to achieve an increase in profit, the attention to making stuff that has no lasting power.

An awful lot of this has been arrived through sensible human conclusions and interactions, but the consequence is that there is waste, there are practises that are ejected mistakenly, there is the convenient forgetting of our history, as we try to repeat some activities…

In short we are on a learning curve but he climate and the planet just doesn’t care, and sometimes we throw the bathwater out with the baby.

What we have to find is a way in which to make the market respond to a desire to stop over-producing, and to me the target is not the ordinary man in the street, a better target would be the manufacturer or shopkeeper. If they refuse to lower standards but to always make or stock the best that is possible at the highest price, we might reuse stuff and be more careful, and indeed this is happening a little.

I do not believe that the mess that we are making is any threat to Gaia, it is a threat to us, so we should clean it up and leave Gaia to look after itself.

The “science” is mostly junk, just like alchemy.

Matt Ryan

24th January 2020 at 11:13 am

We don’t want less waste per se. If it’s economically cheaper to produce things cheaply and then throw them away versus something that lasts longer then the world it better off by taking the more “wasteful” option. The market sets the price and the consumer makes a choice.

You can suggest that all the external costs (environmental, people etc) are not taken into account but how would you capture these? The market makes available all knowledge on the costs it can capture. It’s also known (and economists have received Nobel prizes for work in this area) that you can’t centrally make decisions on costs so the government forcing some sort of external costs doesn’t work in the general case.

So the best you are left with is a gross tool of a “carbon”* tax as per the Stern review. The market can then add this to it’s costs and the consumer can then make their choice. It is likely that would be to continue doing the same thing.

* Note it’s not carbon that is the problem – or at least not without two oxygen molecules bonded to it. And it’s not settled science (despite the claims of the BBC and Guardian) that CO2 is a problem anyway.

Stephen J

24th January 2020 at 2:00 pm

I do not pretend to know the answer, but overproduction of anything is not it. However like the inevitability of a gestapo following the imposition of socialism (Churchill), specifically aiming not to overproduce is a dangerous approach since it involves experts and planners with jobs to hold onto and empires to build.

Overproduction might as you say, be the least worst option. However, as I say, it is still the problem, the climate will look after itself, but we can’t continue to burden ourselves with some of these challenges to our home.

I knew when I was writing it that it looks like I am taking a standard greenie position on carbon, but I took it as read that the correlation between global warming and a much later rise in co2 levels does not mean that the latter is a cause of climate change, as in the famous ice core measurements, where there is a 1000 years between the warming and the release of co2. The greenhouse gas is the water vapour that is related to cloud cover, co2 is plant food and the more we have, the lusher the planet.

But I still think that the competitive market though good, still has room for improvement. Perhaps competing for quality and innovation rather than the lowest unit price might be a direction, which was the idea, but I accept that profit is a very good driver for production and price is a major determinant factor.

Jerry Owen

24th January 2020 at 6:12 pm

Stephen J
I have had many motorcycles in my time a rear tyre costing around 200 squiddlies or so (albeit a high performance one) way more than a tyre for my sports car .. the reason, production numbers. Motorcycle tyres are low volume, car tyres high volume, the higher the production run the cheaper the product. Over production is not a cost burden that’s why end of line stuff is sold cheaply from cars to clothes and shoes, it literally all sells.
There is little wastage under capitalism which has the logistical problem of trying to decide the volume of production for literally millions of potential customers.
It is cheaper and easier to keep a factory production line for cars going 24/7 rather than stopping and restarting it, ditto a McVities chocolate digestive production line of which i try to help their production run as best I can.
People go on about food wastage and show pictures of piles of wasted food. If they showed a graph ( unemotional ) showing food wasted to food sold , ditto cars etc you would find that little is wasted such is the efficiency of capitalist production.
It’s noble to argue for less but more expensive as you do with food, but you are lucky to be able to afford more.. many can’t.
I agree with much of everything else you say though.

steve moxon

24th January 2020 at 7:54 am

It’s an extension of ‘identity politics’; its apotheosis. The ultimate way that the Left’s cognitive dissonance over the failure of Marxist ideology manifests as hated towards the general populace.
The more you try to find any scientific basis to the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, the more astonishing it seems that anyone ever put it forward, never mind accept it.
It does not stand up in any way. There is not even a ‘greenhouse’ effect in the earth’s atmosphere re CO2 … AT ALL — Gerlich, G (2009). Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 23( 3), 275-364.
All of the data going back even through geological time, using reliable proxies of temperature, shows that temperature changes result in correspondiong changes in levels of CO2, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
The IPCC ‘climate scientists’ not only don’t even look into any of the several electromagnetic modes of solar forcing (rather than merely the heat radiation), but they don’t even know the first thing about the sun. There is an ongoing paradigm shift in cosmology / astrophysics whereby the universe is understood in terms of elecrically charged plasmas, not gravity. The supposed 96% of the universe being dark matter/energy is the hopeless unparsimonious notion to try to square with the data. It’s now known that the sun is not the nuclear fusion reactor it had been assumed to be.
As for the utter farce of the way that there is supposedly a measurable global average temperature, the appalling compromising of how measurements are taken, and then the repeated fraudulent ‘adjustments’ …
The anthropogenic global warming myth will go down in history as the worst ever bogus politicisation of science.

Stephen J

24th January 2020 at 9:13 am

Steve, I was interested in your statement: “the sun is not the nuclear fusion reactor it had been assumed to be”.

Where can I find out more about that?

steve moxon

24th January 2020 at 9:42 am

Hi Steve.
There’s lots on-line under ‘electric universe’ and/or ‘plasma universe’, the collaboration of physicists in the Thunderbolts Project; lots of papers and Youtube presentations.

Jim Lawrie

24th January 2020 at 1:15 pm

One of their contradictions is that weather records either side of The North Atlantic are dismissed as merely local data, but the Greenland ice core samples that reflect such local changes are trumpeted as global indicators. As are the Greenland glaciers.


24th January 2020 at 10:19 pm

Damn those Greenland glaciers!

Windy Srx

30th January 2020 at 11:42 am

David Morris

24th January 2020 at 6:07 pm

Gerlich is a crackpot who has no understanding of thermodynamics. The 2009 paper you referenced is gibberish from beginning to end. The fact he managed to get it published is irrelevant; many crackpots manage to get published. The peer review process is unfortunately far from perfect and a lot of junk like that paper manages to slip through.

steve moxon

24th January 2020 at 11:25 pm

Oh, the empty ad hominem, and a daft attack on peer review, which produces the very opposite of what you claim here: peer review tends to be ‘groupthink’ excluding cogent challenge.

R Rodd

25th January 2020 at 4:16 am

Sorry Steve, you are out of your depth on science. I don’t believe in AGW, but the sun’s light and heat do come from nuclear fusion and the electric universe is pseudoscience.

steve moxon

25th January 2020 at 10:13 am

No, it’s an hypothesis, not pseudoscience, with data in support, and the standard notions do not explain the universe, hence the need to posit the vast bulk of matter / energy is ‘dark’, even persisting with this when all attempts to find it have failed.
I’m not a physicist, for sure, but many astrophysicists / cosmologists are working on this.
In any case, the electromagnetically based solar forcings, however they are at root caused, are part of what kills the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, which we agree is bunkum.

Christopher Tyson

24th January 2020 at 7:48 am

Poor old Jeremy Corbyn was branded a Marxist, Extremist and all the rest of it, simply because he wanted to do a little bit of wealth distribution. The greens want to take over and control the old world economy and the elites celebrate them. ‘Never mind you trifling concerns about the poor and the downtrodden, wanting better pay and welfare, the future of the planet is at stake and we are the only people who can sort out the mess’. The elites can be energised and motivated when it suits.

Philip Humphrey

24th January 2020 at 7:42 am

I notice that it’s largely the same middle class people who are trying to impose “wokeness” and political correctness on society. They suffered significant defeats both sides of the Atlantic in 2016 in what was at least in part a blue collar revolt against them. The “climate emergency” is an opportunity for them to virtue signal while reimposing their power.

As far as the ” climate emergency” goes, most of what they’re proposing doesn’t make sense from a scientific point of view. Western emissions are already dropping fast, while emissions are growing from the developing world. But instead of addressing the latter problem, they keep on castigating the West and specifically ordinary working people for being “wasteful”. They just can’t resist trying to assert their self perceived superiority (even though their own lifestyles often generate far more CO2 than the people they’re castigating).

Michael Lynch

24th January 2020 at 6:41 am

Does anyone remember those guys you’d see walking up the high street with sandwich boards that would read ‘the end of the world is nigh’ back and front? They used to always look so glum and desperate and always wore brown raincoats. People would politely turn away and whisper how sorry they felt for this apparently lost soul. We can certainly all remember those religious groups that would propose a firm date for when the world would end and then go disappear somewhere in readiness for the event. When the day came and went you’d never hear a word out of them ever again. It’s all beginning to feel a bit like that with Greta and her cohort now.

Gerard Barry

24th January 2020 at 4:42 pm

Absolutely. “Modern” secular folk like to make fun of religious Christians, yet are lacking the self-awareness to see that they have rigid “morals” of their own that are perhaps more ridiculous.


24th January 2020 at 10:18 pm

Well said, Mr. barry.

Dominic Straiton

24th January 2020 at 6:32 am

Where are all the Australian, climate catastrophe, refugees?

Jim Lawrie

24th January 2020 at 12:54 pm

Hopefully they are all being roasted on the big barbie.


25th January 2020 at 6:11 am

That’s a terrible thing to say Jim. I live in the New England area of NSW and there are no refugees from the fires around here. Just displaced people who have lost homes and are getting on with trying to rebuild.
However, I tend to think you are talking about the huge numbers of people who didn’t suffer from the fires, but because they got a bit of smoke on their washing from a fire 200 klm away have shouted out “Climate Change”. I’m talking about people in Sydney specifically.
Or you may be thinking of the Fake Environmentalists and Greens Party members who want PM Scott Morrison to somehow turn the temperature down one degree which would miraculously stop all the fires. The Greens aren’t concerned about the fires or people suffering, they are to busy organising a march to change the date of Australia Day instead. And the Fake Environmentalists are too busy trying to hold up traffic in the cities.
Or perhaps you are thinking of David Attenborough and of course Greta Thunberg who have raved on from 12,000 miles away on how we Australians should be handling the situation. Rack off David, we don’t want to see you in this country ever again. We don’t have to worry about Greta coming here, she won’t be able to row her boat that far, but if she flies, her hypocrisy will be on show to the world. By the way, Davids carbon footprint must be massive since he’s been jetting about for 40 years making staged documentaries.
Yes Jim, these are the people for the BBQ, and I’ll join you with a beer just to watch. Cheers.


24th January 2020 at 2:08 am

“Climate Emergency” ought to change to “Bog Emergency” because the more people travel around, the more likely that sewages get overfilled with local and foreign bacterial fart poisoning in the air. Something must be done about the overflowing gassy pong caused by commie activists spreading their manures into the environment growing unhealthy fruits that we all eat.

Ven Oods

24th January 2020 at 4:11 pm

Not sure I got what you were driving at there, but I wouldn’t mind a smoke of whatever you’re on…


24th January 2020 at 11:48 pm

VEN OODS. I was politely pointing out that maybe, just maybe the Black Plague in 1665 was caused by migration in Europe as they have to excrete too. Doomsday worms in local faeces breed with foreign ones did kill off quite a lot people. So we better watch out for sewage’s mixing manures to farms and gardens before the horrible smelly pong virus jumps on pets “licking” their masters to death. Ho hum, here it come!

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.