The Guardian’s Climate Cult: Fiona Harvey’s Latest Sermon on COP30
Once again, Fiona Harvey, the Guardian’s Environment Editor-cum-resident climate evangelist, has taken to the pages of her paper to deliver a sermon on the supposed settled science of climate change. In her latest missive, she trumpets the pronouncements of André Corrêa do Lago, Brazil’s diplomat who will preside over the United Nations climate summit (30th Conference of the Parties or COP30) in November this year.
Ms Harvey claims that “climate denialism” has been defeated by the weight of “scientific consensus” and now the deniers are resorting to the argument that climate policies cannot shift the global economy to a low-carbon future. Thus, according to Corrêa do Lago: “It is not possible to have [scientific] denialism at this stage, after everything that has happened in recent years. So there is a migration from scientific denial to a denial that economic measures against climate change can be good for the economy and for people.”
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Nota bene on the CO2 graph the year 2020 when global lockdowns reduced human emissions by 5.4% (NASA) = Germany and Japan’s net CO2 output, 4th and 5th largest industrialised economies, and yet it made no difference whatsoever. In fact higher resolution of the data shows 2020 to have been a particularly egregious spike in planetary CO2 output. We make no difference.
There is correlation between rising CO2 concentration and COP conferences. If we apply climate “science” this proves COP conferences are causing increased CO2 levels. We need to levy a carbon tax on all delegates – that will fix it.
Let’s decarbonize them instead!
:->
Better!
There is something that does affect the Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the Atmosphere, and consistently so.
You can see it as plain as a pikestaff in the accompanying graph.
Those wiggles: although the graph sweeps away to the top right, those wiggles superimposed on it are consistent. They have a periodicity of around 365 days. Is there any immense Energy Source, that varies its output with that periodicity, that is, annually? As it affects the World’s Atmosphere so consistently, it would have to be big, very big. And it looks as though all the NET Zero policies have had zero effect.
Is there anything hiding in plain sight? Or, to be daringly inquisitive, (as asking questions about the prime reason for a cult isn’t without its dangers), is there anything else that might vary its position, or angle, or change something, anything, annually?
It really is a tough nut to crack.
Environmentalism and Socialism are two peas in the same pod. The climate change issue is the gift that just keeps on giving to the Central Planners like this twit in the Guardian. As Churchill said “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It’s only virtue is and equal distribution of MISERY”——–We see that misery play out all over the western world as populations suffer with astronomical energy prices and energy poverty all under the false pretences of a climate crisis, which is simply the seemingly plausible excuse for the few to gain control of the worlds wealth and resources at the expense of the many.—–The UK now has the highest electricity prices in the whole world. The USA has prices 3 times lower and that gap will increase as rump trashes the environmental FRAUD. I am afraid pretending to save the planet does not come cheap.
Environmentalism became the new home for Socialist refugees made homeless by the fall of the USSR.
Educational tracks covered up on Linkedin, but Wikipedia refers to graduation in English Literature in 1993 (from Fenland Poly).
Serial fantasist and delusionist with 30-year track record of promoting voodoo climate science.
But she does look like a nice bloke.
Actually, it looks like the outcome of an downright unholy carnal union between Bill Gates and Boris Johnson.
Now, *that’s* funny..!!
I am going to start referring to the climate doom cultists as “climate deniers” because I think they’re they ones in denial.
Denial about the difference between weather and climate (which they constantly conflate).
Denial about the fact that the climate does actually change all by itself.
Denial about the fact that the earth was a lot warmer than it is now long before humans roamed around burning fossil fuels.
Denial about the fact that atmospheric carbon levels varied long before humans appeared on the scene.
Denial of any evidence that contradicts their cult.
Denial of the existence of hundreds and thousands of scientists that don’t agree with them.
They’re the freakin deniers.
Denial of volcanic activity
I see what you mean, and of course they are deniers. But wouldn’t climate liars or climate Lysenkoists be better?
In complete agreement.
Climate Cult Flooded with Lies
”William Happer, a Princeton physicist, has demonstrated that CO2’s warming effect is logarithmic, diminishing with increased concentration”
I would be interested to know how many people understand the difference between a logarithmic effect and an arithmetic effect?
In my few conversations with people on this topic (as it often leads to those people getting very angry) … I’ve not found but one person in about a decade who knew and that person an engineer. I believe that we must always do our best to say more than the statement and explain, probably with a graph or something. Math education in recent times has been downgraded, it seems.
Trying to sway the argument using maths is probably futile.
I prefer trying to use analogy:
If you put on a pair of sunglasses it stops some light reaching your eyes.
If you put on a second pair it stops even more light.
If you’ve got 10 layers it stops most light and you can’t tell the difference when you add yet another layer – you still can’t see anything.
Any more layers have no effect – you’re already stopping all the light near enough.
For the ‘light’ substitute the heat radiating from the Earth’s surface, For the layers of sunglasses substitute the CO2 in the atmosphere. When the heat can’t escape into space we get warming.
The question becomes how many layers of sunglasses are we at? One or 10 or something in between. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to find out?
Zweimal sechs ist fünf widdewiddewitt und drei macht neune.
[Have to have a text to post the image.]
Since arithmetic has not been taught in schools since the 1970s, few I would imagine.
(Just) one of my pet peeves is the spread of rhetoric – the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. Much prized in the USA but it has now become a mark of British politics and activism.
A rhetorical debate is not about competing facts but competing persuasions. In the case of Climate Change Activists they will trot out lots of emotive concerns – but – it is not important to their rhetorical debate that their ‘concerns’ are factual, only that they are striking.
If you find yourself quoting facts to refute a rhetorical debate you are in the wrong type of debate.
97% of climate scientists agree? Even if true, it would be like saying over 97% of Catholic bishops say you need to go to mass on Sunday. They would, wouldn’t they, otherwise they’d be out of a job.
“Ms Harvey claims that “climate denialism” has been defeated by the weight of “scientific consensus”…”
And thereby confirms which many of us know, consensus is religion and obligatory, evidence is science.
The Vatican used the weight of consensus, with threats, to condemn Galileo to house arrest for daring to side with the Copernican model of the Solar system. We appear to have come full circle.
97% of all climatists agree that human-induced CO₂ is responsible for catastrophic global warming unless emitted by the developing countries China and India.
That’s roughly Ms(?) Harvey’s idea of the science which triumphantly struck climate denialism to the ground. In her own imagination at least.
Time’s Up!
Hahahahahahaha,
Hahahahahahaha,
Oh,
Hahahahahahaha,
Hahahahahahaha,
there’s a reckoning coming soon for these expensive grifters.
Speaking of grifters, does anyone else think Garbage Pail Kid Thunberg has aged backwards since switching bandwagons? When she was an eco loon she looked about 14yrs old, now she’s a tea towel terrorist-supporter she looks about 12yrs. Maybe it’s the fringe…
”Greta Thunberg smiles as she poses for the camera while onboard ship to Gaza.
The activist was seen smiling and laughing onboard while raising her fist in the air and holding a Palestinian flag.
She is planning to ‘break the siege’ by arriving in Gaza on the 12 person boat.”
https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/1929657721265279207
I’m sure the people of Gaza will be grateful for her bringing all those supplies.
The remaining surviving hostages will be so relieved she is on the way at last.
“It’s the turn of those who believe in the fight against climate change to show and to prove that fighting climate change is possible, and that it can come with economic advantages and with a better quality of life.”
Well good luck with that. I thought Harvey was a bloke at first with that lesbian haircut.
Real meaning of Harvey’s statement: People who claim that so-called green tech is either at all unworkable or hellishly expensive, including those who claim that sky-high energy prices are caused by so-called green policies, must be treated in the same way scientific criticism of man-made climate change has already been handled.
How about this perspective which I’m sure Ms Harvey would be on board with?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g4ZXAxPj6hA
Joe Rogan Reacts to AOC MELTDOWN
Please, we can only ask, stop reading, listening to, or watching msm. It serves NO purpose.