Archives

December 2021
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Does Andrew Neil now believe Greta’s (IMHO) climate catastrophist nonsense?

Wednesday/Thursday blog

How I became an ‘untouchable’

Since the publication of my latest book – THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS – I have been trying to get interviewed by the mainstream media about the book.

Of course, there is no chance that media like the Greta-worshipping, woke, West-loathing BBC or C4 News would go anywhere near someone daring to question whether an increase in a trace gas from 3 parts per 10,000 of our atmosphere to 4 parts per 10,000 over 150 years really was about to drastically change our planet’s climate and wipe out most of mankind.

But I had imagined that someone like Julia Hartley-Brewer or Mike Graham from Talk Radio or Nigel Farage from GB News might dare question the scientifically-ignorant, cult-like climate catastrophist nonsense. When contacting these people, I particularly highlighted that the claim of “97% of scientists” supporting the man-made global warming theory was probably the greatest scientific fraud in human history. But I found that nobody wanted to go anywhere near the story.

Is Andrew Neil a climate catastrophist now?

One thing I have noticed is that those few journalists who dare report on supposed climate change will discuss things like the cost of getting to net zero or the effectiveness of heat pumps or the fact that China is the greatest emitter of CO2. But none will question whether net zero is actually necessary. The latest example I saw was an article in the Daily Mail a couple of days ago written by Andrew Neil:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10074327/Still-keen-green-bills-arrived-ANDREW-NEIL-warns-storms-come.html

While discussing the cost of net zero, Andrew Neil wrote: “All governments, of course, have a duty to tackle climate change, which is real and potentially dangerous on so many fronts“.

What we can’t know is whether Andrew Neil really believes that limiting trace gas CO2 emissions will somehow change the Earth’s climate or whether he was forced by Daily Mail editors to include such a sentence because the editors were terrified of the newspaper being accused by the Twitter lynch mob of being “deniers”. But I have noticed that most articles about climate and net zero nowadays include similar (IMHO ‘grovelling’) obeisance to crazed Saint Greta’s climate catastrophist cult.

There doesn’t appear to be anybody anywhere in the mainstream media with the scientific nous or the cojones to denounce the whole climate crisis hysteria for the obvious mass delusion that it is. So my chances of ever being interviewed by anyone in the mainstream media are definitely less than net zero.

More climate nonsense from the Scrotsman?

As we move ever closer to Boris and Carrie’s big climate, hot air, Glasgow gabfest, the media is full of stories designed to terrify us into quivering serfs ready to accept whatever new restrictions on our lifestyles to get to net zero that our increasingly demented rulers think up. Here’s a nice opinion piece from the Scrotsman:

And here’s the reality – the sea level rise as measured at Aberdeen:

Not much sign there of ‘sea level rise is getting faster and faster’ as the Scrotsman claims.

And here’s the sea level ‘rise’ from Stockholm which is in a similar part of the world to Aberdeen:

If you have ever taken a bath (probably something most climate activists and Scrotsman supposed ‘journalists’ are unfamiliar with) you would know that the water cannot be rising in one part of the bath while falling in another part. And if you wanted to write about sea levels, you should probably check out such concepts as Post Glacial Rebound (why sea levels around Scrotland appear to be rising) and Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (why sea levels at Stockholm appear to be falling)

Apparently the Scrotsman used to be a newspaper. Now, like most of our mainstream media, it’s just propagandist, Greta-worshipping garbage.

6 comments to Does Andrew Neil now believe Greta’s (IMHO) climate catastrophist nonsense?

  • Jeffrey Palmer

    A quick look at the Wiki page on Doomsday Cults revealed the following –

    ‘A psychological research study by Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter found that people turned to a cataclysmic world view after they had repeatedly failed to find meaning in mainstream movements. Leon Festinger and his colleagues had observed members of the group for several months, and recorded their conversations both prior to and after a failed prophecy from their charismatic leader. The group had organized around a belief system which foretold that a majority of the Western Hemisphere would be destroyed by a cataclysmic flood on December 21, 1955. Their work was later published in the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World.

    Social scientists have found that while some group members will leave after the date for a doomsday prediction by the leader has passed uneventfully, others actually feel their belief and commitment to the group strengthened. Often when a group’s doomsday prophecies or predictions fail to come true, the group leader will simply set a new date for impending doom, or predict a different type of catastrophe on a different date. Niederhoffer and Kenner say: “When you have gone far out on a limb and so many people have followed you, and there is much ‘sunk cost,’ as economists would say, it is difficult to admit you have been wrong.”

    In Experiments With People: Revelations from Social Psychology, Abelson, Frey and Gregg explain this further: “…continuing to proselytize on behalf of a doomsday cult whose prophecies have been disconfirmed, although it makes little logical sense, makes plenty of psychological sense if people have already spent months proselytizing on the cult’s behalf. Persevering allows them to avoid the embarrassment of how wrong they were in the first place.” The common-held belief in a catastrophic event occurring on a future date can have the effect of ingraining followers with a sense of uniqueness and purpose.’

    When one thinks about the various catastrophes predicted since the 1970s – global freezing, acid rain, vanished north and south poles, rising sea levels – which have all failed to materialise without a shred of apology from those who predicted them, one realises just how accurate the above summary is when applied to the Climate Change cult.

    And how the real driver for the worldwide success of this cult is psychological, not scientific.

  • Loppoman

    There’s no doubt in my mind that the whole climate business is a global conspiracy and journalists’ jobs have been secured by not “rocking the boat”.
    There can be no other reason why your version of things should not be listened to. It would give journalists an opportunity to question/argue what you have written and demonstrated via charts and newspaper clippings. They don’t want to do that because there is no fiction to expose and therefore nothing to criticise you with. You cannot be given the opportunity to expose the climate scam.

  • twi5ted

    Its clear climate change is merely a vehicle to usher in an ever larger state and seed control to supranational unaccountable and therefore corrupt bodies like communist central united nations and eu. Hence Andrew Neil being largely onboard given i would say he leans soft left and is sympathetic to the davos corporative cause not least as it has made him rich and powerful.

    I am hopeful the covid scamdemic has exposed a lot of these back room operators like Blair and Schwab. The divide between red and blue states in America is revealing the possible future paths and Sweden etc pushing the virus scam and government corruption into the daylight.

  • A Thorpe

    I agree completely with your assessment of the media and especially those who appear to be sceptical about climate change. They show no understanding of the physics or of the empirical evidence. What they really believe is a mystery. The same thinking often crops up in published papers that appear sceptical. They would not be published if they followed the science and evidence in your book. The media will never debate with you because they don’t have the detailed understanding and they would look stupid.

    It is just the same with the government and business organised conferences. They will never invite a speaker who disagrees with their views. The International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Feb 2022. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say, but I doubt the media will report it. There comes a time when the genuine scientists have said everything and they will just end up repeating themselves. In contrast the alarmists can continue to generate more fear, encouraged by the support of the ignorant masses who want somebody to save them.

    Group think has taken over and not just over climate, the pandemic adds to the mass delusion. The masses have a fear of life and freedom. The totalitarian group think is always based on absurd ideas and the group belief gets stronger as it is challenged, so rational debate is impossible. The media survives by serving the masses, not minorities. Mattias Desmet discussed this recently in relation to the pandemic and his belief is that totalitarian ideas always collapse, but he didn’t explain how. The destruction of our energy supplies and economy is not the collapse we want.

  • Bad Brian

    The problem is that the same climate apocaltpse story is rammed down our throats by MSM in several different ways, each and every day.

    The idea of catastrophic disaster sells movies, sells newspapers and makes for exciting and interesting documentaries.

    You do not see headlines like ” Climate change scientists are bored stiff and leaving in droves to become lorry drivers because the climate has stayed much the same for 150 years !”

    ” Sea level monitoring is pointless as any change is tiny”

    ” Scientists who predicted a new ice age a few years back admit they were so boring that girls would not date them so they just invented this idea to get grant money”

    ” Scientists who predicted global warming admit they falsified the data to get grant money and have a good laugh as a way to pick up chicks”

    The problem is that with the cancel culture which has been in operation for many years, prominent people will not take a stand against the MSM or they will be instantly crushed, villified and wiped from the map. Why should they take that chance ?

    look at the fuss when Kier Starmer was asked if he thought a snowman could have a cervix. Answer : Yes, but only in Bongo Bongo land.

    Look at JK Rowling, reduced to writing books to pay her bills since she suggested some mentally unbalanced transvestite with a full beard and tackle did not look cute in a twinset and pearls. The ignomomy !

  • Hardcastle

    We are,we must be close to the point where reality imposes itself with a vengeance.The fake pandemic,where are all the Bodies? and the fake climate emergency are without doubt vehicles for the great reset of the world economy by the very people who have destroyed it in the first place.However,the policy of net zero,has implications of reality which clever propaganda is powerless to overcome.That is,all the assumptions of modern society,warmth,light,food,suddenly becoming in short supply,particularly for the masses.This,they will not be able to talk their way out of.Her Majesty,who I have always respected,has I feel,just made the biggest mistake of her life,hitching her wagon to the Climate change scam.So much for political impartiality.This could be the beginning of the end for our Royalty.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>