In Ms Harvey’s universe – occupied by the likes of Corrêa do Lago, Greenpeace and the UK’s very own ‘Mad Ed’, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero – the science is settled, the energy transition is an imperative and decarbonisation will not only save the planet from an impending environmental catastrophe but also bring about economic growth and prosperity. Harvey’s article hinges on the tired assertion that the science of climate change is settled, with a ‘97% consensus’ among scientists that human activity drives catastrophic global warming. This figure, derived from John Cook’s 2013 study, has been debunked repeatedly for its methodological flaws — most notably by scholars like David Legates, who found that only a tiny fraction of the studied papers explicitly endorsed the catastrophic narrative.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – the science is not settledJune 3rd, 2025 |
 25 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the science is not settledLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
As Sir Karl Popper explained – if something is “settled” it is NOT natural science. To be part of the natural sciences a theory must always be “open” not “settled” – subject to empirical testing. To be taken seriously a theory in the natural sciences must BOTH offer a logical explanation of WHY something happens AND predict what will happen.
Reacting to the failure of predictions by “putting back the dates” (the predictions made, from the 1980s onwards, about Carbon Dioxide doing XYZ by certain dates, did not come to pass – so the International Establishment “put back the dates” to the further future) or, even worse, rigging the empirical data to fit the theory, is a betrayal of natural science.
Presently there is a closed system – to be a “Climate Scientist” one must accept the theory, not dissent from it – that is NOT natural science.
As for the economic side – far from creating “prosperity” the “Green” policies of the International Community are leading to disaster for those countries that adopt them. The pushing of “Green” farming in Sir Lanka (formally Ceylon) led to collapse there – and the “Green” taxes and regulations in the United Kingdom is helping to crush manufacturing industry here – in a country that has to export manufactured goods in order to be able to import food (we now import more food than any previous time in our history – partly due to importing many millions of immigrants and the natural increase of these populations) and raw materials.
In other nations the media, such as TRT in Turkey, push the “Climate Crises” “Climate Emergency” narrative endlessly – but policy in these countries does NOT really reflect this.
But in the United Kingdom the “Climate Crises” “Climate Emergency” narrative pushed both by the media and by the education system – IS reflected in policy. Mr Ed Miliband, and others, do what they say is necessary.
In a way this is commendable – in that the British government’s actions reflect its words (unlike so many other countries – who say one thing, and do the opposite, as regards Carbon Dioxide), but it will, unfortunately, help destroy the United Kingdom.
It is possible that the United Kingdom would have collapsed anyway, as its “Finance Economy” does not really make sense (to put the matter mildly) – but the “Green” taxes and regulations, undermining what is left of farming and manufacturing make crises certain.
So the United Kingdom will serve a valid (useful) function – showing the results of certain policies, and warning other nations not to follow these policies. As it does in other areas.
If it’s “settled”, it’s not science, it’s dogma. Science is *NEVER* settled, that’s what makes it science.
Edit: What Paul says.
Sadly I fear that the future collapse of the United Kingdom will NOT lead to the International Community (the international establishment – government and corporate) changing course.
They are more likely to pretend that that “Trump Tariffs” or something else, caused the collapse of the United Kingdom – rather than the, incredibly damaging, policies of the British government (elected and unelected – with the unelected government of officials and “experts” having the greater power) causing the collapse.
Tragically the International Community, government and corporate (the corporations being joined at the hip with governance structures) is too committed to this line of policy to change course. As are the academic “experts” – whose entire culture is based upon certain theories.
jgh – quite so.
And I suppose that British people can be proud, in a way, that our country will still serve a useful function – showing the terrible consequences of certain policies (on Carbon Dioxide and on other matters) – serving as a warning to other nations, if only they will heed that warning.
The persistence of the 97% deceit is remarkable, but not surprising given how it successful it has been. Here’s a summary of why it is a deceit, compiled more than 10 years ago: https://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2014/03/occams-broom-and-stink-of-97-of-climate.html
FrankS – it will soon not be a deceit, because the establishment will refuse to appoint people who do not agree with theory. Not just refuse appoint dissenters to be “Climate Scientists” – but will refuse to appoint them to any scientific department.
Nor is it just the Carbon Dioxide is evil theory that would-be academics must sign up to – they must also agree with “Diversity” and “Inclusion” and the rest of the “Social Justice” or “Equity-Equality” doctrines – whether they want to be, for example, a mathematician or an historian, or an economist, or a physicist.
Thus not only the natural sciences will die in the West – but all intellectual disciplines will die. Unless this movement is defeated.
The “Social Justice” doctrine (including “Racial Justice”, “Gender Justice” and “Climate Justice” concepts) will destroy civilisation – unless it is defeated.
Sadly, tragically, I believe that it is too late to defeat “Social Justice” (including “Climate Justice”) in the case of the United Kingdom. Let us hope I am mistaken.
But other nations may survive – and I certainly hope that they do.
Leaving aside any discussion of Sir Karl and the philosophy of science for a moment it is as Paul states at 10-39am not even really about science. This is ideologically driven. The same way Marxism is or Islamism or whatever. These things often appropriate the clothes of science which is of course why we have “Crtical Theory“. But that’s just window dressing. It’s acting. I mean when David Prowse donned a black cape and that awesome helmet it didn’t make him a Sith Lord, right?
Mr Millipede (who must have a massive set of carbon footprints) and his gang are on a Quest. A truly Quixotic one because Temu and Shein are also on a Quest – to turn everything into plastic crap at an astonishing rate. If Mr Milliped and the Pippi Longstocking of Doom et. al. were right it would matter not a tuppence. It’s just vain-glorious virtue signalling
PS. I’ve just remembered the Knight of the Mournful Countenance also had an obsession with windmills…
@jgh
If it’s “settled”, it’s not science, it’s dogma. Science is *NEVER* settled, that’s what makes it science.
That isn’t true at all. There are lots of things in science that are settled. For example the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric nature of the solar system. That isn’t to say that they can’t be questioned or tweaked, but that the science is very unlikely to be wrong, unlikely to the degree that the possibility should not really be considered or resources used to investigate.
The problem with CAGW theory is not that science can’t be settled, but that in this case it isn’t. The real measure of good science is its predictive power: given the state of something, can you tell me what the state will be in the future. And the CAGW model has been consistently, almost invariably, proven to make incorrect predictions. So it isn’t that the science is not settled, but that by the measure of science it is simply wrong.
But there is a more important point here in regards to the UK that has nothing to do with science. Even were we to accept the theory of greenhouse gases causing CAGW, the simple fact is that were Britain to disappear entirely tomorrow along with all its greenhouse gas emissions, the difference would be so small that it would be practically impossible to measure. So, what does that mean? It means that the only real reason for Britain to do Net Zero is to look good in the eyes of the global community. Which is to say, even if you accept ALL the assumptions on which it is based, the British Net Zero goal is quite simply a pointless vanity project.
Fraser Orr – if their predictions are falsified by time, i.e. fail to come true, they react in two ways….
Either they put back the prediction by years or even decades – “it will happen – it just has not happened yet”.
Or….
They manipulate (or just make up) data to “prove” the theory.
They have no moral problem with the above – because they do not believe that objective apolitical truth exists – everything is “power relations” to either push a “Reactionary” (boo-hiss) agenda, or to push a “Progressive” (good-wonderful) agenda.
“But if Britain vanished tomorrow it would make hardly any difference to Carbon Dioxide emissions”.
So what? This is not really about Carbon Dioxide emissions – it is about destroying supposedly evil “capitalist” society. And replacing it with Mark Carney (now the Prime Minister of Canada) Henri Saint-Simon or Dr Klaus Schwab style “Stakeholder Capitalism” – which is really total Collectivism.
“But that will lead to mass death”.
Yes – of course it will.
This is one of the reasons Perry was wise to leave – and those people who urged him to stay, and die in a hopeless struggle, were not correct.
“We can not afford to leave, so you have to stay and die with us” is NOT a good moral position.
NickM.
Yes it is part of an international “Social Justice” movement – whether it is called Racial Justice, Gender Justice, Climate Justice, or whatever, it always goes back to the “Social Justice” totalitarian collectivist principle.
It is not a few individuals like Ed Miliband – it is an entire international establishment.
Although the good news is that some of the international establishment are only pretending to believe in it.
Sadly Britain is governed by true believers – both the elected government, and the, far more important, unelected government of officials and “experts”.
Remember how the Covid lockdown was imposed on Prime Minister Johnson – with him being forced to make speeches in support of a policy he knew to be insane, indeed suicidal for this nation.
Perhaps a better man would have shot himself rather than allowed himself to be humiliated as Mr Johnson was – indeed used as a tool to do terrible harm to the British people – crippling the country by more than 400 Billion Pounds of useless, indeed counter productive, Covid spending.
But it is a lot easier to urge someone else to do the honourable thing – than to do it one’self.
Mr Johnson would be perfectly entitled to turn round and say “you first Mr Marks”.
“But he could just have said NO and stuck to NO”.
They would have done to Mr Johnson what they later did to Liz Truss – forced him out of office and made his very name a curse.
Liz Truss did not “crash the economy” – it was already crashed and the lady was not allowed to do anything, but the British people think Liz Truss “crashed the economy” because most people believe what they are constantly told.
If Mr Johnson had said “no” to the Covid lockdowns he would have been branded MURDERER by the establishment – hysterical people, convinced by the media that Mr Johnson had murdered their loved ones, would have followed him everywhere – screaming at him, and spitting on him.
Of course, it would all have been a lie – but the people screaming, spitting, and trying to tear him to pieces would believe it to be true – that if only Mr Johnson had locked down, their loved ones would not have died from Covid, that he “murdered” them.
Vast numbers of people have been made to believe, by the education system and media, that British Carbon Dioxide emissions are “destroying the world” and will lead to the “death of all life on Earth” – total genocide of humans and (perhaps even more important) of the fluffy animals as well, and of all plants (anyone who mentions that Carbon Dioxide is plant food is, at once, attacked – such dissenters must be torn to pieces).
Anyone who questions this is a “Denier” – who must-be-destroyed.
This is “science” with “modern characteristics”.
This has got nothing whatsoever to do with science.
I do not deny the laws of thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics or anything else. I simply question the efficacy of computer models as political and ideological tools, which they so screamingly, obviously are here.
@Frazer Orr, a good point. I would add that what the “science”, however manipulated, says is very different from what the activists and politicians say and apparently believe. If you ask “is the climate changing and, if so, is human activity contributing in some measure to that?” it’s quite likely that 97% of people with reasonably relevant scientific qualifications would say “probably yes” (I certainly would). That is very different from the “Doomed, I tell you – Doomed!” narrative that is driving policy.
@Barbarus
That is very different from the “Doomed, I tell you – Doomed!” narrative that is driving policy.
It is worth clarifying that what they are saying is “Doomed, we are doomed, unless you give me huge amounts of money and power.” Which is quite different. After all, if we are irrevocably doomed the correct response is not monk mode but “let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die.” You can only convince people to go monk mode if you convince them that it might produce their redemption.
@Barbarus
If you ask “is the climate changing and, if so, is human activity contributing in some measure to that?” it’s quite likely that 97% of people with reasonably relevant scientific qualifications would say “probably yes” (I certainly would).
The problem even with this is that the collection and processing of the data is so politicized and paid for (paid gazillions of dollars for) by people with huge and powerful agendas, I just don’t really trust the data. Which isn’t to say the climate isn’t changing or that any change is not anthropogenic, it is just that the data is so untrustworthy that I don’t really know one way or the other. The revelations at the University of East Anglia’s emails revealed that we are not just looking at the data from a million thermometers all over the world, but rather the data must necessarily be manipulated, and so is subject to the choices of the people doing the manipulations. And these people are paid, and made famous, by people who want a very particular result.
When Philip Morris produces a report saying that smoking is completely safe, we are right to be skeptical because the result aligns with the desires of the funders. This is no less true of science funded by government dollars.
Again, I am not saying there is no climate change or that it is not anthropogenic, I just think there isn’t sufficiently reliable data to conclude one way or the other. I think about these guys, climate scientists, who for most of their lives were hidden away irrelevant in some dark dusty corner of the university studying some obscure science, are all of a sudden transformed into rock stars whose books make them millions of dollars. It is pretty hard for any human, scientist or not, to resist the urge to tweak the numbers, unconsciously or not, in their favor to keep the gravy train rolling. A bit too much honesty and George Clooney won’t invite you to his parties any more.
And science has a mechanism to correct for this. It is called the scientific method where mother nature tests your theories, and she doesn’t care about fame or fortune. If your predictions don’t produce the results you expect, there is something wrong with your hypothesis.
Here is the track record.
Mark,
You remind me of something… Increasingly I have noted that the results of computer models wrt climate are treated as empirical evidence. In science there is theory and there is measurement. Models are not exactly theory but they are built on theory. It is, for obvious reasons, impossible in principle to falsify a theory by running a model based upon said theory. Yes, the model may lead to insane results but that can always be explained by (a) it wasn’t done properly and/or (b) we need a bigger computer.
One of the highest profile proponents of the “Doomed, I tell you – Doomed” narrative resides in Buckingham Palace and has not raised so much as a regal little finger to counteract the ongoing damage to the country which is in part encouraged and legitimised (See – even the king agrees with us) by his silly beliefs.
The best argument against climate change is to point out that no nation outside the west pays it the slightest attention. It is a scam on western taxpayers, nothing more.
If the “Green” movement was really concerned about Carbon Dioxide emissions, they would support the massive expansion of nuclear power – very many small, modular, nuclear reactors – which can be quickly built and put into operation safely.
But most of them are ANTI nuclear – in Germany and elsewhere they actually want to close-down what few nuclear power stations there are.
Whatever this movement is really about it is NOT about reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions.
Again – if this movement was against Carbon Dioxide emissions it would be protesting against the People’s Republic of China, the largest emitter of Carbon Dioxide.
And the movement does nothing of the kind – indeed it is happy for Western nations to import vast amounts of manufactured goods from the People’s Republic of China and elsewhere – with no concern at all for the Carbon Dioxide emissions.
This movement is not about reducing world Carbon Dioxide emissions – the people who control this international movement could not care less about world Carbon Dioxide emissions (see above). This movement is about destroying the “Capitalist West”.
Watermelons – Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
Wasn’t it Jens Stoltenberg who said that the Green parties, not Trump or even the AfD, are the real Russian fifth column?
Doesn’t that explain the aversion of the Greens to nuclear power?
Paul,
They are against reducing carbon emissions because they are quasi-religious zealots. They are against solutions like nuclear because it doesn’t fit with their Edenic vision which in reality would be feudal. They are evil. They ought to be tried for crimes against humanity. Sentenced to treadmills to generate “Ecotricity”. As they fall they get processed into the Soylent Green to feed the remainder.
@John
and has not raised so much as a regal little finger to counteract the ongoing damage to the country which is in part encouraged and legitimised
Even were he inclined to do so he could not. The British King simply does not have the power or authority to do such a thing, and it is absolutely his obligation to keep his political opinions to himself. And he has, for the most part since he has become king.
I did hear him addressing the Canadian parliament saying “I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.” This statement is really curious to me. It is meant to be taken in a spirit of humility toward those tribes, but if you take it on face value it really is a mocking of them. Imagine if you stole my house and stood on the porch yelling “I’d like to acknowledge I took over, and an not giving back Fraser’s house.” Effectively he is saying, I recognize a huge crime has happened against these people, but we are going to do nothing to reverse it, and am in fact going to brag about it.
I don’t agree with the premise that the land was stolen, it is much more complicated than that, but for people who believe that kind of shit these land acknowledgements really only add insult to injury. And to think that bragging you got away with stealing someone’s property somehow makes the victims feel better — I mean it really is ridiculous. Every time I hear these things I am aghast with the stupidity of them. If you really think you stole someone’s land then damn well give it back with interest and an apology.
I think it’s more like “y’all stole this land from those poor people, so don’t be surprised when we start taking stuff from you and giving it to them as reparations.”
It’s like the Apostle’s Creed for them. A simple declaration of beliefs, in this case of the nobility of victimhood. The idea being, declaration of the Creed is a meaningful shot across the bow of evil.
To me, it’s mostly a Woke badge of conformity. But then, here in Minnesota, we have a dim view of the predecessor tribes. I WOULD do it as bragging. 😉
What Fraser Orr says in his first post, exactly and precisely.
@bobby b
I think it’s more like “y’all stole this land from those poor people, so don’t be surprised when we start taking stuff from you and giving it to them as reparations.
… while keeping a SMALL service fee for ourselves in the process”
Oh, yeah, that small service fee!
I think Thomas Wolfe called it “gathering the crumbs.” When lots of other people’s money passes through your hands, lots of crumbs always fall off. Thus, NGOs and rich pols.