Hateblock For Lovelock


I see any definition of ‘dangerous climate change’ as a political act not a scientific fact.

Who said that?  Dr Joe Smith in a moment of weakness…he being Roger Harrabin’s sidekick at the climate propaganda unit CMEP.



James Lovelock was the Green’s hero….when he claimed the earth was in peril from man’s exploitation.

Not so much now.

Lovelock has become the hate figure, the apostate, of the green alarmist campaign….he must be put to death….in a ‘credibility’ sense.

Having recently been airing his new caution about climate change the guns are being turned upon him.

I wonder if the BBC will be making room in the schedules for him to defend his position as they do for others like Miliband and the green ‘goddess’ Julia Slingo who far from being a mere scientist at the Met Office relaying back to her bosses the weather she has become a campaigner for the climate change lobby.

When she was torn to shreds for her false claim that extreme weather is a result of climate change the BBC set up a nice little show for her to allow her to ‘explain herself’ and the ‘science’ on ‘The Life Scientific’:

Julia Slingo

First broadcast:
Tuesday 08 April 2014

Jim Al-Khalili’s guest this week is Dame Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office. The conversation ranges from her childhood wonder of clouds to climate change’s part in this winter’s floods.


Slingo, and that other favourite of the BBC, Sir Brian Hoskins  have now written to the Sunday Times to denounce Lovelock  as ‘flying in the face of science’….this from Hoskins who claims the Deep Oceans are absorbing the heat and hence we have the Great Pause (or slowdown as Harrabin prefers to trickily label it)…despite the IPCC explicitly denying they had any research or data that showed the heat being absorbed by the oceans….

The IPCC’s Thomas Stock told us  (09:58) that the current warming hiatus could not be predicted because:

There are not sufficient observations of the uptake of heat, particularly into the deep ocean that could explain this hiatus.’

‘Likewise, we have insufficient data to establish a relationship between the causes of the warming….There is not enough published literature to allow us to study this.’

So no data.

But plenty of er, less than convincing facts from the BBC.


And never mind that none of Slingo’s work mates agree that the floods and storms can be linked to climate change.

Prime Minister climate change opinion not backed up by science, says Met Office

“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.”


Paul Davis, chief meteorologist for the Met Office said that very strong winds much of the UK experienced which was caused by jet stream.
“December has been the windiest spell since 1969, but unprecedented perhaps not. It probably feels unusual because the last few winters have been fairly settled and cold and we haven’t had the story conditions that just experienced.”


Direct from the Met. Office:   There’s currently no evidence to suggest that the UK is increasing in storminess.


Slingo and Hoskins write that ‘The latest IPCC report makes clear the calamitous impacts of such a future.  It is for society to judge whether the risks of climate change are large enough to take action to reduce them.  Lovelock’s current position implies that these risks have now reduced; climate science suggests not.’


Science eh?  Not as if science seems to feature very strongly in any of their considerations…it is now more a matter of faith and believing…..and if you don’t believe the Inquisition will set out to burn you out.

Here they admit that:

‘It is impossible to assert categorically that the sort of climate changes envisaged in The Revenge of Gaia either will or will not occur.  Rather, climate scientists attempt to estimate the risks of different levels of climate change.’


However that’s not true…..this ‘risk assessment’ is merely the latest tactic to get around the inconvenient fact that the science doesn’t prove anything…there is absolutley no proof that CO2 is the main, or any, driver of climate change.

‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’  Dr Patrick Moore…co-founder of Greenpeace


And to the likes of Slingo there is no debate to be had…as you can see…..she has declared that the risk is so high that we must act….and any critics can just STFU.

So ‘society must decide’ becomes ‘we select few’ must decide….and with the BBC closing down genuine debate that is made all the easier.


Note…when Lovelock wrote his book in 2006…and as seen above Slingo refers to it as if it still represents the green view……so Lovelock obviously was, and still is, considered qualified to talk about the subject….when he sides with the ‘consensus’.

Now however, when he ‘cools’ on the subject he is ‘out of date’….‘Lovelock’s opinions on this subject sit uncomfortably with modern scientific understanding of the climate system.’

Note that ‘modern’…..so his old theory is believed to be still ‘current’ and credible whilst his later ‘modern’ theory is not in fact ‘modern’ but unscientific and not in line with ‘modern’ science.


How times change eh?

“Lovelock will go down in history as the scientist who changed our view of the Earth…. The Revenge of Gaia is the most important book ever to be published on the environmental crisis.” — John Gray in 2007

Or as Paxman described him just last week:

‘One of the world’s top public intellectuals, a titan of post-war science working outside mainstream scientific institutions coming up with some of the most original ideas of our time.



Confused?  Don’t expect the BBC to explain it….Jim Al Khalili certainly didn’t tackle Slingo on it.



And I’ll finish off as I began with Dr Joe Smith…just so you know where he is coming from:

Public service media have a responsibility to equip society for a long and difficult conversation about how we reduce the likelihood of climate change, and how we prepare for the environmental changes that past emissions have locked us into. Anything less and the public are being swindled.


But not  a long and difficult conversation about the science….that’s settled.




Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Hateblock For Lovelock

  1. johnnythefish says:

    Scientists should stick to the ‘science’ and keep their gobs shut about what governments should or should not be doing about it or telling us how we should be ‘adjusting’ our lifestyles to mitigate any effects of ‘warming’, otherwise ‘scientists’ like Slingo give themselves away for what they are: green activists.

    As for the deep ocean warming the BBC continues to plug the 28gate line even though you don’t need to look very far on the internet to discover, as the scientists quoted by Alan above clearly state, there are no historical temperature records for the deep oceans against which comparisons can be made.

    The question is: when will somebody hold the BBC to account for pushing the green agenda at the expense of impartial inquiry, including a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts?


    • Phil Ford says:

      “…Scientists should stick to the ‘science’ and keep their gobs shut about what governments should or should not be doing about it or telling us how we should be ‘adjusting’ our lifestyles to mitigate any effects of ‘warming’, otherwise ‘scientists’ like Slingo give themselves away for what they are: green activists.”

      But that’s exactly what they are, Johnny, and worse still they’re politically motivated, not scientifically motivated. CAGW is a political manifesto – it always has been – as is evidenced by the EU and UN’s promulgation of Agenda 21, itself nothing less than a manifesto for change – social, political, cultural and economic away from cheap, abundant fossil fuels to a totalitarian vision of an agrarian future of ‘sustainable’ ‘renewables’.

      Only this afternoon I caught some socialist on BBC R4 suggesting that, in the end, the only way to combat ‘climate change’ (not the same as real, actual climate change, but the bastardised, perverted science fiction version so beloved of warmists) would be to ‘go 100% renewables’.

      This is the point – this is the aim, the vision, the endgame. CAGW zealots want to kill our fossil fuel economies whilst handing the wealth of richer nations to the poorer – all in the name of ‘sustainability’.

      CAGW propaganda, especially that of the BBC, must be resisted at every turn, by employing all the actual, observed science we can to counter the vague, fatuous, inaccurate, wilfully misleading lies and deceptions being foisted on taxpayers across the western world by the EU and the UN climate brigade.


      • johnnythefish says:

        Agree with everything you say, Phil, and you can’t help but wonder where the likes of Cameron (who, let’s face it, is the one who should be leading the challenge against the BBC on this shameful betrayal of its charter) stands on Agenda 21 – he can’t use ignorance as an excuse as every man and his dog who has any interest in ‘climate change’ is aware of its existence.


  2. Mark II says:

    We had our first taste of balance free climate change reporting on Today this morning.
    Having been castigated for being too even handed on the AGW debate, on the grounds that the science is settled, we now have entirely one sided discussion of the subject on what Is the BBC’s flagship news program – this used to be known as propaganda.