We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Boris’ speech of welcome to COP26 delegates

Fellow world leaders and others, we meet at a grave time. I’ve consulted the extinction clock, which chronicles the tireless work of those who alert us to the dangers of climate change, and clearly there is no cause for levity.

Firstly, let me welcome you all to this conference on the dangers of Global Warming caused by our abuse of fossil fuels. I hope each of you had a good flight. Joe Biden tells me he can’t recall seeing any ice beneath him as Air Force One flew over the Arctic – no surprise there, as we were warned it would be ice-free all summer from 2017, and have no ice in the month of September from 2015, and be ice-free all year round from September 2016. As regards delegates from the central US, I’m sorry the Hoover dam has spent all of 2021 as a dry hole, but console yourselves with the reflection that it has not produced a drop of drinking water or electricity since the end of 2016, so it makes little difference.

Secondly, let me reassure you that the heavy rain of the last few days does not mean Glasgow is about to drown from a combination of rising sea levels and extreme weather events. It was very sad when London and other British cities vanished beneath the waves at the end of December 2019, but this effect of climate change was well-predicted beforehand, so I’m glad to welcome people who surely despise as much as I do any so-called supporters of the climate cause who spent December 2019 complaining about my election and Brexit instead. But while we know that climate change is making extreme weather events (heavy rain in Glasgow, for example) more common, I observe that only some notorious science deniers are claiming that anything apocalyptically bad could happen during this conference.

Now to the agenda: item one, apologies for absence.

– No-one from the Maldives can be with us because those beautiful islands vanished beneath the sea at the end of 2018. My grief when that happened would have been greater still, had not the islanders already died of thirst after climate change exhausted their supplies of fresh water at the end of 1991. (And if they had survived these earlier disasters, they would surely have perished in the tropical climate catastrophe of 2020.)

– Similarly, we have no delegates from the city of Adelaide, which ran out of drinking water at the end of March 2009 (or was it the end of December 2007?). Looking on the antipodean bright side, at least their fellow countrymen were well-warned that (since June 2020) snow in the ‘Australian Alps’ has been almost as unknown as it is to British children born since 2000, so any Australian delegates who like skiing were spared the temptation to choose Australian snow over Scottish rain. (Australians can condole with the Swiss and Austrian delegates – all their glaciers disappeared last December.)

Item two: what can we do about climate change? Sadly, nothing. I have it on the authority of Prince Charles himself that the deadline for taking action, after which global warming became irreversible, expired in January of this year, and I can only wonder at the royal optimism which set it as recently as that. As a Tory, I of course ridiculed the last Labour PM’s assertion that action on global warming would be too late unless done before December 8, 2009 (five months before he had to face his first and only election!). Since then, however, so many warnings (from figures of great authority in the climate change consensus) have expired that it would be ridiculous in me to dispute His Royal Highness’ assurance that time was most definitely up on January 24th, given that it was definitely up a good six months earlier (June 28, 2020), everyone having been thrown out of the last chance saloon half a year before that (December 1, 2019), after the final opportunity to do anything about it went by a good six weeks earlier (October 16, 2019). And let’s face it: all these warnings were hopeful almost to the point of being deniers, since we all know time had already run out back in September 14, 2016 – or May 24, 2016 – and we passed the “point of no return” in December 2014.

So let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we fry.

18 comments to Boris’ speech of welcome to COP26 delegates

  • Zerren Yeoville

    The Maldives are clearly so concerned about the imminent disappearance of the country beneath the limpid tropical waters of the Indian Ocean that earlier this year they announced that they would be auctioning off a number of islands for development into resorts … on 50-year leases.

    50-year leases? What happened to 3… 2… 1… gurgle-gurgle-glug-glug?

  • William O. B'Livion.

    @Zerren Yeoville:
    If I were a true believer in CAGW and I were in touch with leaders of such and island, I would propose exactly that scheme–first off you’re “fleecing” those who don’t believe, and since they’re not part of your tribe, then f&k them.
    Secondly I would be getting some fairly big players to put serious skin in the game–if these people didn’t believe in CAGW,and then got report for themselves that it was happening these companies would then spread the word, if only to preserve their investments.
    And lastly–assuming I and the leaders I deal with are truly concerned about the health and wellbeing of our citizens (stop laughing, it’s theoretically possible) I would direct the funds from those auctions into the sorts of investments likely to pay off if CAGW is true and the islands do get submerged–then we will have the money to move our people somewhere else, and get them started in a new life.

    As it is I think that CAGW is a scam, and I wish Boris would actually give that speech. Unfortunately he seems to have wholly bought into that foolishness.

  • Paul Marks

    The long list of false predictions is important – and Niall has done a good job in presenting it.

    Also there is the systematic altering of data – by many scientists who have received the highest honours and endless praise. Altering data to fit a theory is just about the worst betrayal of science there is – and for years I refused to believe that it could have been done wildly. Perhaps a few rouges had done it (such the infamous serial liar Michael Mann), but NOT mainstream government bodies. However, it is now clear that official bodies (both government and university based) have been altering data – changing historic records on such things as sea ice coverage, and even temperature itself.

    It is still possible that the theory that human C02 emissions cause global warming is CORRECT (fraud in support of a theory does not prove a theory wrong – just as police officers may “fit up” a GULITY person by planting evidence against them), but the systematic international fraud in support of this theory should raise serious doubts.

    We also live in the age of Covid 19 – when medical bureaucrats in most Western countries smeared Early Treatment for the disease, allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die.

    By this point (the end of October 2021) to pretend this was a series of honest mistakes is very hard to believe. It is certainly possible that they knew that Early Treatment with a combination of long standing (and not expensive) medications worked – and they did everything they could to PREVENT Early Treatment.

    For example, in the United States the Federal bureaucrats issued regulations that Early Treatment medications were only to be used after “hospitalisation” (their word) – i.e. when it was TOO LATE.

    In short “Early Treatment” when it is NOT early.

    This was not an accident – they even appeared in a television documentary boasting about how they had defeated the evil “Trump” with these regulations. The hundreds of thousands of deaths being, it would appear, to be a price-worth-paying to undermine a politician they opposed. Although, to be fair to them, I suspect that their aims were a lot bigger than undermining an American President – “Trump” was in the way of the goals of the international establishment (totalitarian control – which they regard as noble) – so he had to go. It was “nothing personal” – just as the election rigging in November 2020 was “nothing personal”. And, we must not forget, that Covid 19 was created by the gain of function research in Wuhan funded by some of the very people (Tony Fauci, Peter Daszak…) who later smeared Early Treatment (thus costing vast numbers of lives), demanded “lockdowns” (which did such terrible harm to the Western world – indeed seem to have been designed to do harm to the Western World, rather than designed for some medical purpose) and-so-on.

    It may have been that the release from the lab in Wuhan was an accident (we just do not know) – but certainly the international establishment took advantage of this accident (if it was an accident) in an utterly dreadful way.

    After all this – the level of trust one can put in government and other establishment “experts” is zero. And the same people who lectured us on Covid are now lecturing us on the Climate-Change-Emergency – hello Patrick Vallance.

    I repeat this particular theory (that human emissions of C02 cause Global Warming) may be TRUE (it is possible) – but statements in support of the theory from official “experts” are, if anything, a mark AGAINST the theory.

    The official experts in most Western countries have shown themselves (on a whole series of matters) to be prepared to lie – and to be motivated by political objectives (the control of society, of human beings, from the cradle to the grave – in a totalitarian system), not a love of scientific truth for its own sake.

  • Paul Marks

    In medicine the West must get back to the central relationship of personal trust between an individual patient and their doctor – get away from the collective “Public Health” approach (which inevitably becomes political – inherently so). The sole concern of a medical doctor must be their individual patient – NOT “what is policy” (either government policy, or the policy of some corporate body).

    And in science, there must be return to the study of nature for its own sake (seeking truth – for its own sake), not with “social considerations” in mind. If the primary concern of some scientists is “policy” (government policy or corporate policy – or some combination of the two), they are no longer really scientists.

  • Paul Marks

    Perhaps the ultimate absurdity was reached in 2020 when “Public Health” officials (in many Western countries – but especially the United States) declared that riots (“protests” i.e. looting, burning and killing) in support of Marxist Black Lives Matter were more important than their own Covid regulations – because “racism is a public health emergency”.

    After that it was impossible to believe anything these “Public Health” officials said – or to have any faith in the system (educational system and governmental system) that produced them and gave them such insane powers.

  • Paul Marks

    The World Health Organisation is now pushing the Climate-Change-Emergency – led by a Marxist Doctor of Philosophy (not medicine) who was put in charge of the organisation (some years ago) by order of the People’s Republic of China Communist Party dictatorship.

    No doubt Peter Daszak of the “Eco Health Alliance” (who was sent by the World Health Organisation to investigate the “leak” of the research he funded in Wuhan – and declared himself innocent) and “Bill” Gates (a university dropout who was given vast sums of money due to the connections of his family with IBM – for the use of a computer system he did not create) will also be preaching to us all on the Climate-Change-Emergency.

    Still, yet again, just because utterly vile people are pushing this theory (and pushing it for their own totalitarian political agenda) – does NOT mean the theory is false.

  • Nemesis

    @ Paul Mark’s
    “It is still possible that the theory that human C02 emissions cause global warming is CORRECT”
    I doubt it but even so, what’s wrong with a bit of warming? Bring it on.

  • Stonyground

    These failed predictions are significant in two ways. Firstly, the people who made them are still making predictions of future climate trends. If they were wrong in the past, why should anyone believe them now? Secondly, making predictions is a well established way of testing a given hypothesis. In scientific matters, nothing is ever proven 100% but if your hypothesis leads you to make accurate predictions then that puts in on a sounder footing. Conversely, if your predictions fail, it means that your hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded completely. At this stage I would suggest that the idea that CO2 causes any significant effect on the climate needs to be discarded.

  • Paul Marks

    Michael Mann and “Bill” Gates are now pushing the line that Greenland is losing ice-and-snow mass (it is not).

    By some strange coincidence “Bill” Gates wants to mine Greenland for minerals to use in his electric cars project. These cars will also have onboard computers – I suspect that one would not be able to drive up to the private estates of Mr Gates (not that he is a private owner of course – he holds the land “in trust for society” even though “society” will not be able to visit these areas and he and his friends will) to see if he really eats insects rather than beef – as he wants ordinary people to do.

    The radical left agree with Mr Gates and his associates – but they want to do all this, and then get rid of Mr Gates and his associates.

    Prime Minister Johnson is now speaking.

  • bobby b

    “I doubt it but even so, what’s wrong with a bit of warming? Bring it on.”

    Amen. It’s 29F here this morning. (-2C to y’all.) I’d gladly make a bunch of coasties and islanders step back 8″ from the water to keep from hitting the -20’s that are coming here soon.

    Global warming – which, sadly, isn’t really coming – would be a great thing.

  • JohnK

    Sadly, BoJo’s actual speech was far worse than this parody. He quoted Greta Thunberg, emitted some drivel about James Bond, and advocated for a cashless world. The man is now a real and present danger to democracy.

    BoJo was elected to “get Brexit done”, which he did, badly, as we see from the Northern Ireland Protocol and the current fishing war with France. He was also elected because the Labour leader was a far left anti-semite.

    A fairly decent but boring man like Keir Starmer could not possibly be worse than this. The Conservative Party needs to get rid of this man fast.

  • Ferox

    Glasgow? Wasn’t that supposed to be underneath a mile of ice by now?

  • Paul Marks


    The Prime Minister says what he is told to say by the “experts” (at least in terms of basic policies – although he gets to decide how he presents things) – and another Prime Minister would say the same things (although perhaps in slightly different words).

    We have reached that stage now.

  • Paul Marks

    John K.

    If I was forced to push policies that would cause terrible harm, I might make a speech in deliberately extreme terms, produce “arguments” for the policies that were utterly absurd, and present these “arguments” in a deliberately stupid (jokey) way.

    I am NOT saying that this is what the Prime Minister is doing – but it did occur to me as a possibility.

    The “hostage video” scenario.

    “Yes we are going for a totalitarian cashless society” (straight out of British SF series, such as “1990”, that the Prime Minister might have seen in his youth).

    “James Bond – wonderful film, especially the end where he is clearly blown to bits (even though there was no need for that), but the end says “James Bond will return”, as a ghost?”

    “Greta – yes a great mind, and very stable emotionally”.

    A bit like blinking “SOS” at the camera.

  • Paul Marks

    Today it was announced that all British banks and financial institutions will have to produce plans on how they will use their lending to “decarbonise” the economy – these plans to be checked by the government and activist groups. What the Americans call the Environment and Social Governance (ESG) score system, and the Chinese call the Social Credit System.

    No doubt the Credit Bubble banks, which depend upon the Bank of England drip feed of funny money, will rush to WELCOME this.

    And, for those fools who look to Mr Putin as a saviour – Moscow is under another “Covid” lockdown, and Mr Putin is in alliance with the People’s Republic of China – of the Social Credit System.

    For anyone who still does not know…

    This is not about reducing C02 emissions, any more than the “Covid” lockdowns were about Covid 19. If you want to know what the World Economic Forum (founded by Dr Schwab whose book on “Stakeholder Capitalism”, FASCISM, came out in 1971 – long before Covid or the “Climate Change Emergency”), the United Nations and the government and corporations who make up the international establishment, want – then Orwell’s image is apt.

    Imagine a human face, with a boot stamping down upon it – for ever.

    That is what they want – that is what all this is really about.

  • My post’s review of past climate predictions is far from complete. 50 years of predictions that the climate apocalypse is nigh links to the New York Post’s summary of a few of the choicest headlines collected by Bjorn Lomberg, author of “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

    Everyone can choose their own favourite. Mine is the Grauniad’s 2004 report that “Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years”.

    Of course, if they were referring to the political climate, then I see where they’re coming from – but hope that free speech, like snowfalls, will continue to be something experienced from time to time in our green and pleasant land.

  • Something I missed out of my post. 🙂

    Instapundit today mocked a contrasting couplet from the Grauniad:

    Artists must confront the climate crisis – we must write as if these are the last days (headline, the Grauniad, November 12th, 2021).

    President ‘has four years to save Earth.’ (headline, the Grauniad, January 17th, 2009).

    Clearly those Instapunditers don’t understand that this is science! Just as the note of an ambulance siren appears to lower as it rushes past you, so the finality of any deadline will drop as you pass it. That’s science, guys!

    And another thing: in line with their philosophy, climate scientists switched over to renewables long ago, so of course they have an endless supply of warnings from an inexhaustable source. That’s climate science, guys!

    So they need not worry about the expiry of any deadline. (We must, or we’re science deniers, but they needn’t.)

  • If you prefer real science to climate science, this is from American Thinker via Whats Up With that (and h/t Instapundit). An important observation comes early:

    Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back.

    But read the whole thing. It is packed with sensible, pithy explanations of how the process of climate science abandoned that of real science for that of a fund-raiser (interpreting ‘fund’ as encompassing power and fame as well as money).