I suggest that Climate Skeptic (why 'k' not 'c'?) might establish a relationship (link?) with Climate Scepticism, a website that's been battling away in this area since about 2015. It has published a vast amount of useful and interesting material, comment and discussion over the years. And it's done it all without subscriptions or any other funding. Access here: https://cliscep.com.
Good. We need a lot more straightforward scepticism of anthropogenic climate change, and especially the spin-off pseudoscience of extreme weather attribution - needed because long term global warming of just over one degree Celsius since 1850 was not scary enough. Climate zealots were boasting a while back that 'climate science denial' had been defeated once and for all, so settled was the Settled Science of Man Made Global Warming, and it was therefore just a matter of dealing with the delayers and deniers of climate mitigation. They were wrong. The fundamental 'science' of anthropogenic greenhouse gas driven global warming - and extreme weather attribution - has never looked so shaky and is coming under increasing challenge from real published science and data.
As a piad subscriber to the Daily Sceptics site, will I get the Climate Sceptics articles on that feed or will they be additional or, will all climate articles carved out in their entirety and placed on this feed?
It’s astonishing that in 2025—when we’re seeing climate disruption play out across the globe in real time—we’re still getting served reheated denial from Toby Young and The Climate Skeptic. Floods, wildfires, glacier collapse, rising seas, ocean heatwaves, and shifting growing seasons are all accelerating. Yet here we are again, with another post dismissing it all as alarmism in service of a so-called “radical green agenda.”
Let’s take his claims point by point.
⸻
“What consensus?”
Toby casts doubt on the often-cited “97% consensus” among climate scientists, calling it a myth based on a debunked study. That’s simply false. The 97% figure comes from multiple independent studies—most notably Cook et al. (2013), which analyzed nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers and found overwhelming agreement that human activity is driving climate change. More recent research finds the consensus is even stronger—approaching 99% among publishing climate experts.
Cherry-picking criticisms of one paper doesn’t change the reality: the scientific consensus is robust, global, and growing. No alternative survey has shown anything remotely close to widespread dissent.
📌 Cook et al., 2013
📌 Powell, 2019 – 99% Consensus
⸻
“CO₂ is just a trace gas…”
Yes, and so is cyanide. Trace gases can have major effects. Despite comprising only 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO₂ is crucial to Earth’s energy balance. Its heat-trapping capacity doesn’t just vanish at higher concentrations—it follows a logarithmic curve, which is well understood and incorporated into physics, climate modeling, and satellite remote sensing.
The claim that its warming effect is “saturated” is outdated and has been debunked repeatedly. If that were true, Earth’s temperature wouldn’t be climbing in step with emissions—as it clearly is.
📌 NASA on CO₂
⸻
“But what about Happer, Curry, and Clauser?”
This is the tired “appeal to contrarian authority.” William Happer is a physicist, not a climate scientist. He’s promoted the idea that more CO₂ is good for plants and once compared climate science to Nazi propaganda. Judith Curry’s scientific work doesn’t deny human-caused warming; she questions the level of certainty and appropriate policy responses. John Clauser, a Nobel laureate in quantum mechanics, has never published peer-reviewed research on climate and openly admits to ignoring the foundational climate literature.
These are not leading voices in climate science—they’re fringe figures given amplified status by outlets with a political axe to grind.
📌 Scientific American on Clauser
📌 RealClimate on Happer
⸻
“Climate models are flawed…”
Models don’t drive the science—they reflect our best understanding of physics, chemistry, and feedback systems. They are constantly validated against observations and have successfully predicted decades-long trends, including polar amplification, stratospheric cooling, and increasing ocean heat content. No model is perfect, but the broad patterns are confirmed by real-world data again and again.
The uncertainties are not about whether climate change is happening—they’re about how fast and how bad it will get if we stay on our current path.
⸻
“Hundreds of scientists say there is no climate emergency”
This refers to the so-called “World Climate Declaration,” organized by Clintel—a climate denial lobby group, not a scientific body. The list is padded with non-climate scientists, engineers, lobbyists, and even the odd dentist. It’s not peer-reviewed science; it’s a PR stunt.
⸻
Bottom Line
Toby Young is using monetized contrarianism to sell subscriptions. That’s the game here. It’s not about engaging with evidence—it’s about positioning himself as a brave truth-teller standing against the mob, even as reality crashes through the door.
If there were no climate emergency, reality wouldn’t be doing such a good job showing us otherwise.
I don't know if Toby Young is right or wrong, but are you any kind of scientist? Anyone who mentions wildfires and floods as evidence has a simplistic idea of what would be scientific evidence. You state 'rising sea levels'; I would find that a good argument, but what evidence is there?
But my main reason for resistance is that what Britain is doing is harming emissions, because actions are based on ideology and bad science, while meanwhile, industry and our economic health is exported to countries which don't care about the increase in carbon dioxide levels.
Hi Collin, fair question. You don’t have to be a scientist to read scientific evidence—as long as you’re engaging with it honestly.
Yes, wildfires and floods alone aren’t proof of climate change, but trends in their frequency, intensity, and seasonal patterns are exactly the kind of data scientists analyze. When attribution studies consistently show that heatwaves, fire weather, extreme rainfall, and drought risks are rising due to human-driven warming, it’s not “simplistic”—it’s evidence.
As for sea level rise, it’s one of the clearest and best-documented indicators:
• Global sea levels have risen over 20 cm since 1900, and the rate is accelerating.
• We track it via satellite altimetry, tide gauges, and ice mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica.
Finally, on Britain’s role: The UK isn’t “harming emissions,” it’s reducing them—emissions have fallen nearly 50% since 1990 while still powering a modern economy. That’s not ideology—it’s engineering, policy, and innovation.
Outsourcing emissions is a challenge, yes. That’s why global cooperation matters. But claiming there’s no point unless others go first just hands the future to those least interested in solving the problem.
I wonder on what basis you base your assertion that 'climate disruption' is playing out in real time, other than from mainstream media propaganda and your overactive imagination? The IPCC's own reports continue to state 'low confidence' in any significant change in events such as floods, droughts, wildfires etc. Indeed, statistically wildfires are far less of a problem now than they were 50-100 years ago.
And as for your comparison of carbon dioxide with cyanide, that really is bonkers! CO2 is not a poison, it is beneficial to plant life, and the anthropogenic increase in the atmosphere is actually making the world greener, though you won't hear about that much amongst your righteous groupthink.
Hi Adam, I appreciate your response, but let’s get specific. Your claims repeat a number of popular talking points that don’t hold up when we actually look at the evidence.
⸻
1. “Climate disruption isn’t real—it’s media hype”
This isn’t about media headlines. It’s about hard data from global monitoring systems:
• Ocean heat content is at record levels—measured directly by the ARGO float network.
• Glacier loss is accelerating worldwide—seen in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, etc.
• Extreme heat events are becoming more frequent and intense, confirmed by attribution science.
• Shifts in growing seasons and species migration are already being documented globally.
These aren’t projections—they’re happening now and tracked by agencies like NOAA, NASA, the WMO, and the IPCC.
4. “CO₂ is just plant food—comparing it to cyanide is bonkers”
The cyanide point wasn’t about toxicity—it was about scale of effect. Like many trace gases, CO₂ has a powerful impact on Earth’s energy balance despite being a small fraction of the atmosphere (0.04%). That’s how the greenhouse effect works.
Yes, CO₂ can stimulate plant growth under some conditions—but:
• Nutrient and water limitations often prevent those benefits from being realized.
• Elevated CO₂ can reduce nutritional quality (e.g., protein, zinc in staple crops).
• The “greening” trend is already showing signs of reversal due to heat and drought stress.
This isn’t about “groupthink” or mainstream media—it’s about thousands of scientists across disciplines observing the same trends independently. If you’re going to challenge that, it’s fair to ask: where is your evidence that holds up to scrutiny?
go and live fossil fuel free (that means giving up your laptop and smart phone and just about everything else) for a year and return to this site to report back what it was like. I want real evidence of people living fossil fuel free so I can see what awaits us and then I can make a decision about trade offs today versus trade offs when I and almost everyone alive on the planet today will be dead ie 2100 and beyond.
No one is calling for an overnight fossil fuel shutdown or living like it’s 1800. That’s a strawman.
The real plan is a phased transition—switching how we power modern life, not giving it up. Renewables, electrification, and better tech are already replacing fossil fuels without sending us back to the Stone Age.
Asking for someone to live completely fossil fuel–free today proves nothing—the infrastructure isn’t there yet. That’s exactly what the transition is meant to fix.
You don’t need to go live in a tent to know climate impacts are real—and getting worse now, not just in 2100.
Clown World. It's not getting worse now. Zero evidence despite the fact that I, and countless like me, have been told for decades of the impending doom that should be upon us now and tipping points that have passed. Why should we believe any further predictions predicated on the same nonsensical failing models? Despite the trillions spent on the theory, no experiment has ever shown man made CO2 is cooling/warming/extreme weather the planet. Ever. None. Given the dramatic changes to people's lives and the fantastical costs we are being asked to fund to mitigate this modelled threat, someone somewhere in the past 5 decades should have been able to carry out an experiment in line with the principles of the scientific method to prove the theory? But no. No one has ever down this. Go and live fossil fuel free from the impending doom caused by the;
on coming Ice Age (in 1970s narrative)
Global warming (1980s - 90s)
Climate Change (2000s - 20s)
Exterme weather (2020s...)
Delete as appropriate to fit the latest narrative.
Even the IPCC don't attribute any weather conditions to man made CO2. But the Catastrophisers constantly and confidently do.
CO₂’s warming effect was demonstrated in lab conditions by John Tyndall in the 1850s. Today we measure it in the atmosphere via satellite (e.g. NASA’s CERES), and we track rising ocean heat, ice loss, and extreme heat trends—all aligning with emissions.
As for attribution:
→ The IPCC AR6 (2021) directly links human activity to extreme heat, heavy rain, drought, and fire weather.
No one credible is claiming we can “experimentally isolate the planet”—but this isn’t guesswork. It’s evidence. Dismissing it all because it doesn’t fit your narrative isn’t skepticism—it’s denial.
Bottom line is pollution and environmental degradation are real issues but climate change is a money making scam.
Just like COVID 19 and vaccinations.
You are concerned about Toby Young using monetized contrarianism to sell subscriptions, and missing the billions spent by governments on behalf of the taxpayers to fund billionaires’ life styles and anyone else who hangs onto their coat tails.
You have strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel!
You’re lumping together climate science, COVID vaccines, pollution, and wealth inequality as if they’re all part of the same global scam. That’s not argument—that’s narrative-building. It might feel clarifying, but it collapses complex issues into a single cartoon villain and lets you dismiss any evidence that doesn’t fit.
You say climate change is a “money-making scam”—but the people raising the alarm aren’t the ones profiting. Fossil fuel companies are. Lobbyists are. Politicians are. And yes, even media outlets like the one Toby Young runs are monetizing contrarianism. You’re pointing to taxpayer-funded science—open, peer-reviewed, international—and calling that the con, while ignoring trillions in fossil fuel subsidies and lobbying efforts to stall action.
You’re free to believe what you like. But it’s worth asking: What would real evidence of climate risk even look like to you? If your answer is “nothing would convince me,” then we’re not having a discussion about evidence at all—we’re just defending worldviews.
Re “You’re lumping together climate science, COVID vaccines, pollution, and wealth inequality as if they’re all part of the same global scam.”
You are talking bollox, can’t you read? I said “pollution and environmental degradation are real issues” so not a scam, your comment makes you look silly.
You are ‘narrative-building’ yourself, so don’t be so hypocritical. Everything is story anyway, haven't you grasped this yet? History is story, that's the whole point.
And you are the one with the cartoon villain, ‘Let’s all be scared rigid by climate change’, same play book with COVID ‘Scary alien looking virus’ nonsense.
Re “but the people raising the alarm aren’t the ones profiting.” Really?? You believe that do you?? Al Gore raised the alarm, he has done rather well off it. Ok, he’s a politician, but who are you saying is raising the alarm and not profiting? Scientists have jobs and positions to defend and arguing about climate is just one way to keep it all justified.
As for “taxpayer-funded science”, it is used to justify the vast sums of money on subsidies for ‘green’ technology. The taxpayer is used as the fall guy to pick up the tab.
Thanks for confirming the point. You do lump together climate science, COVID, and public policy into a single cynical narrative—even if you concede pollution is real. That’s precisely the problem: everything inconvenient gets waved off as a scam by default, with no meaningful effort to distinguish between science, policy, and grift.
Yes, history is made up of stories—but not all stories are equally grounded in evidence. There’s a difference between myth-making and reality-based inquiry. Climate science isn’t just a “narrative,” it’s the result of decades of empirical research from independent institutions around the world, converging on the same conclusions. If that’s just a “story,” it’s a remarkably coherent and predictive one, built on testable evidence.
And no, scientists don’t get rich by warning about climate change. Being a working climatologist is not some path to fortune. Al Gore didn’t write the IPCC reports, NOAA bulletins, or NASA datasets. He popularized them, and while you may dislike him, attacking his wealth doesn’t invalidate the science.
Subsidies, by the way, exist across all energy sectors—fossil fuels included. You’re angry about public investment in renewables, but silent about the trillions in global fossil fuel subsidies propping up legacy systems. That double standard suggests your real issue isn’t with subsidies—it’s with change.
You’re free to be skeptical. But if every source of evidence is dismissed as corrupt, and every critic is part of “the narrative,” you’re not engaged in serious analysis—you’re reinforcing a belief system that can’t be falsified. That’s ideology, not inquiry.
You are amusing CRC, twisting and turning what I say to suit your tale. I am realistic that’s all, having witnessed the constant fear mongering over various red herring issues to distract from real concerns over several decades. How old are you by the way?
But let’s cut through your condescending inaccurate crap CRC. I want, among other things, clean uncontaminated water and air, unpoisoned nutritious food and a world where the natural environment is respected and cared for. I want a world free from wars and pharmaceutical harms from vaccines and drugs.
I don’t want the land/seascape covered with solar panels and wind farms, damaging the sea beds, wildlife and reducing food production land.
How dare she? A jumped up little girl who has been put on a pedestal by left wing environmental activists and who now supports terrorists in Gaza! How dare she lecture me! How dare she!
«The truth is that many eminent scientists do not agree that the planet is on a highway to hell as a result of humans releasing carbon dioxide, a trace gas that comprises just 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere.»
I enjoy disagreement but i am determined to avoid the shouty-blamey-personal attacks we have had to listen far too much to. By putting Greta Thunberg front and centre, not necessary for your argument, you create the moment for your first reply being to call her pure evil. So I'm out.
She's pro net zero, pro Palestine, pro EU and pro WEF. I think that makes her a female Hitler, what and dangerous retard she is , pure evil.
Greta the Goblin
She is a bugger, her name tells us!
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/assorted-buggers-and-annoyances-a?utm_source=publication-search
I suggest that Climate Skeptic (why 'k' not 'c'?) might establish a relationship (link?) with Climate Scepticism, a website that's been battling away in this area since about 2015. It has published a vast amount of useful and interesting material, comment and discussion over the years. And it's done it all without subscriptions or any other funding. Access here: https://cliscep.com.
K or C are both accepted spelling, one UK English the other American English. Interchangeable. A bit like the use of Z & S.
Its a great site
Good. We need a lot more straightforward scepticism of anthropogenic climate change, and especially the spin-off pseudoscience of extreme weather attribution - needed because long term global warming of just over one degree Celsius since 1850 was not scary enough. Climate zealots were boasting a while back that 'climate science denial' had been defeated once and for all, so settled was the Settled Science of Man Made Global Warming, and it was therefore just a matter of dealing with the delayers and deniers of climate mitigation. They were wrong. The fundamental 'science' of anthropogenic greenhouse gas driven global warming - and extreme weather attribution - has never looked so shaky and is coming under increasing challenge from real published science and data.
Only if it’s not loaded with lies, like this chump has done.
As a piad subscriber to the Daily Sceptics site, will I get the Climate Sceptics articles on that feed or will they be additional or, will all climate articles carved out in their entirety and placed on this feed?
It’s astonishing that in 2025—when we’re seeing climate disruption play out across the globe in real time—we’re still getting served reheated denial from Toby Young and The Climate Skeptic. Floods, wildfires, glacier collapse, rising seas, ocean heatwaves, and shifting growing seasons are all accelerating. Yet here we are again, with another post dismissing it all as alarmism in service of a so-called “radical green agenda.”
Let’s take his claims point by point.
⸻
“What consensus?”
Toby casts doubt on the often-cited “97% consensus” among climate scientists, calling it a myth based on a debunked study. That’s simply false. The 97% figure comes from multiple independent studies—most notably Cook et al. (2013), which analyzed nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers and found overwhelming agreement that human activity is driving climate change. More recent research finds the consensus is even stronger—approaching 99% among publishing climate experts.
Cherry-picking criticisms of one paper doesn’t change the reality: the scientific consensus is robust, global, and growing. No alternative survey has shown anything remotely close to widespread dissent.
📌 Cook et al., 2013
📌 Powell, 2019 – 99% Consensus
⸻
“CO₂ is just a trace gas…”
Yes, and so is cyanide. Trace gases can have major effects. Despite comprising only 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO₂ is crucial to Earth’s energy balance. Its heat-trapping capacity doesn’t just vanish at higher concentrations—it follows a logarithmic curve, which is well understood and incorporated into physics, climate modeling, and satellite remote sensing.
The claim that its warming effect is “saturated” is outdated and has been debunked repeatedly. If that were true, Earth’s temperature wouldn’t be climbing in step with emissions—as it clearly is.
📌 NASA on CO₂
⸻
“But what about Happer, Curry, and Clauser?”
This is the tired “appeal to contrarian authority.” William Happer is a physicist, not a climate scientist. He’s promoted the idea that more CO₂ is good for plants and once compared climate science to Nazi propaganda. Judith Curry’s scientific work doesn’t deny human-caused warming; she questions the level of certainty and appropriate policy responses. John Clauser, a Nobel laureate in quantum mechanics, has never published peer-reviewed research on climate and openly admits to ignoring the foundational climate literature.
These are not leading voices in climate science—they’re fringe figures given amplified status by outlets with a political axe to grind.
📌 Scientific American on Clauser
📌 RealClimate on Happer
⸻
“Climate models are flawed…”
Models don’t drive the science—they reflect our best understanding of physics, chemistry, and feedback systems. They are constantly validated against observations and have successfully predicted decades-long trends, including polar amplification, stratospheric cooling, and increasing ocean heat content. No model is perfect, but the broad patterns are confirmed by real-world data again and again.
The uncertainties are not about whether climate change is happening—they’re about how fast and how bad it will get if we stay on our current path.
⸻
“Hundreds of scientists say there is no climate emergency”
This refers to the so-called “World Climate Declaration,” organized by Clintel—a climate denial lobby group, not a scientific body. The list is padded with non-climate scientists, engineers, lobbyists, and even the odd dentist. It’s not peer-reviewed science; it’s a PR stunt.
⸻
Bottom Line
Toby Young is using monetized contrarianism to sell subscriptions. That’s the game here. It’s not about engaging with evidence—it’s about positioning himself as a brave truth-teller standing against the mob, even as reality crashes through the door.
If there were no climate emergency, reality wouldn’t be doing such a good job showing us otherwise.
I don't know if Toby Young is right or wrong, but are you any kind of scientist? Anyone who mentions wildfires and floods as evidence has a simplistic idea of what would be scientific evidence. You state 'rising sea levels'; I would find that a good argument, but what evidence is there?
But my main reason for resistance is that what Britain is doing is harming emissions, because actions are based on ideology and bad science, while meanwhile, industry and our economic health is exported to countries which don't care about the increase in carbon dioxide levels.
Speaking of simpletons, have you looked at what the World Weather Attribution Group has to say about your claim?
Hi Collin, fair question. You don’t have to be a scientist to read scientific evidence—as long as you’re engaging with it honestly.
Yes, wildfires and floods alone aren’t proof of climate change, but trends in their frequency, intensity, and seasonal patterns are exactly the kind of data scientists analyze. When attribution studies consistently show that heatwaves, fire weather, extreme rainfall, and drought risks are rising due to human-driven warming, it’s not “simplistic”—it’s evidence.
As for sea level rise, it’s one of the clearest and best-documented indicators:
• Global sea levels have risen over 20 cm since 1900, and the rate is accelerating.
• We track it via satellite altimetry, tide gauges, and ice mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica.
→ NASA overview: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Finally, on Britain’s role: The UK isn’t “harming emissions,” it’s reducing them—emissions have fallen nearly 50% since 1990 while still powering a modern economy. That’s not ideology—it’s engineering, policy, and innovation.
Outsourcing emissions is a challenge, yes. That’s why global cooperation matters. But claiming there’s no point unless others go first just hands the future to those least interested in solving the problem.
I wonder on what basis you base your assertion that 'climate disruption' is playing out in real time, other than from mainstream media propaganda and your overactive imagination? The IPCC's own reports continue to state 'low confidence' in any significant change in events such as floods, droughts, wildfires etc. Indeed, statistically wildfires are far less of a problem now than they were 50-100 years ago.
And as for your comparison of carbon dioxide with cyanide, that really is bonkers! CO2 is not a poison, it is beneficial to plant life, and the anthropogenic increase in the atmosphere is actually making the world greener, though you won't hear about that much amongst your righteous groupthink.
Hi Adam, I appreciate your response, but let’s get specific. Your claims repeat a number of popular talking points that don’t hold up when we actually look at the evidence.
⸻
1. “Climate disruption isn’t real—it’s media hype”
This isn’t about media headlines. It’s about hard data from global monitoring systems:
• Ocean heat content is at record levels—measured directly by the ARGO float network.
• Glacier loss is accelerating worldwide—seen in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, etc.
• Extreme heat events are becoming more frequent and intense, confirmed by attribution science.
• Shifts in growing seasons and species migration are already being documented globally.
These aren’t projections—they’re happening now and tracked by agencies like NOAA, NASA, the WMO, and the IPCC.
→ WMO State of the Global Climate 2023 Report:
https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=22291
⸻
2. “The IPCC has low confidence in floods, droughts, wildfires”
That’s misleading. The IPCC AR6 (2021) report assigns different confidence levels by region and hazard, but the overall pattern is clear:
• High confidence that heatwaves and hot extremes have increased.
• Medium to high confidence that heavy precipitation and flooding are rising in many regions.
• Medium confidence in more frequent/aggravated droughts in some areas.
• High confidence that fire weather has increased in key parts of all inhabited continents.
→ IPCC AR6 Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (2021):
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
⸻
3. “Wildfires are less of a problem than 100 years ago”
That statistic about total global burned area is misleading. Much of the decline is due to less savanna burning in Africa—not less wildfire risk.
Meanwhile, wildfire intensity and destructiveness have increased in key fire-prone regions:
• Western US and Canada – longer fire seasons, hotter, more destructive fires.
• Australia – the 2019–2020 “Black Summer” fires were the most catastrophic on record.
• Southern Europe – record wildfires in Greece, Portugal, Spain in recent years.
→ NASA: The Complex Relationship Between Climate and Wildfire:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3312/
⸻
4. “CO₂ is just plant food—comparing it to cyanide is bonkers”
The cyanide point wasn’t about toxicity—it was about scale of effect. Like many trace gases, CO₂ has a powerful impact on Earth’s energy balance despite being a small fraction of the atmosphere (0.04%). That’s how the greenhouse effect works.
Yes, CO₂ can stimulate plant growth under some conditions—but:
• Nutrient and water limitations often prevent those benefits from being realized.
• Elevated CO₂ can reduce nutritional quality (e.g., protein, zinc in staple crops).
• The “greening” trend is already showing signs of reversal due to heat and drought stress.
→ NASA on CO₂ Fertilization and Greening:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
→ Zhu et al., 2016 (Nature Climate Change):
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
⸻
Final thought:
This isn’t about “groupthink” or mainstream media—it’s about thousands of scientists across disciplines observing the same trends independently. If you’re going to challenge that, it’s fair to ask: where is your evidence that holds up to scrutiny?
go and live fossil fuel free (that means giving up your laptop and smart phone and just about everything else) for a year and return to this site to report back what it was like. I want real evidence of people living fossil fuel free so I can see what awaits us and then I can make a decision about trade offs today versus trade offs when I and almost everyone alive on the planet today will be dead ie 2100 and beyond.
No one is calling for an overnight fossil fuel shutdown or living like it’s 1800. That’s a strawman.
The real plan is a phased transition—switching how we power modern life, not giving it up. Renewables, electrification, and better tech are already replacing fossil fuels without sending us back to the Stone Age.
Asking for someone to live completely fossil fuel–free today proves nothing—the infrastructure isn’t there yet. That’s exactly what the transition is meant to fix.
You don’t need to go live in a tent to know climate impacts are real—and getting worse now, not just in 2100.
Clown World. It's not getting worse now. Zero evidence despite the fact that I, and countless like me, have been told for decades of the impending doom that should be upon us now and tipping points that have passed. Why should we believe any further predictions predicated on the same nonsensical failing models? Despite the trillions spent on the theory, no experiment has ever shown man made CO2 is cooling/warming/extreme weather the planet. Ever. None. Given the dramatic changes to people's lives and the fantastical costs we are being asked to fund to mitigate this modelled threat, someone somewhere in the past 5 decades should have been able to carry out an experiment in line with the principles of the scientific method to prove the theory? But no. No one has ever down this. Go and live fossil fuel free from the impending doom caused by the;
on coming Ice Age (in 1970s narrative)
Global warming (1980s - 90s)
Climate Change (2000s - 20s)
Exterme weather (2020s...)
Delete as appropriate to fit the latest narrative.
Even the IPCC don't attribute any weather conditions to man made CO2. But the Catastrophisers constantly and confidently do.
You’re repeating long-debunked talking points.
CO₂’s warming effect was demonstrated in lab conditions by John Tyndall in the 1850s. Today we measure it in the atmosphere via satellite (e.g. NASA’s CERES), and we track rising ocean heat, ice loss, and extreme heat trends—all aligning with emissions.
As for attribution:
→ The IPCC AR6 (2021) directly links human activity to extreme heat, heavy rain, drought, and fire weather.
See: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
(Summary for Policymakers, Sections B.2 and B.3)
No one credible is claiming we can “experimentally isolate the planet”—but this isn’t guesswork. It’s evidence. Dismissing it all because it doesn’t fit your narrative isn’t skepticism—it’s denial.
🤡🤡🤡🤡 some one has drunk too much climate koolaid.
Bottom line is pollution and environmental degradation are real issues but climate change is a money making scam.
Just like COVID 19 and vaccinations.
You are concerned about Toby Young using monetized contrarianism to sell subscriptions, and missing the billions spent by governments on behalf of the taxpayers to fund billionaires’ life styles and anyone else who hangs onto their coat tails.
You have strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel!
You’re lumping together climate science, COVID vaccines, pollution, and wealth inequality as if they’re all part of the same global scam. That’s not argument—that’s narrative-building. It might feel clarifying, but it collapses complex issues into a single cartoon villain and lets you dismiss any evidence that doesn’t fit.
You say climate change is a “money-making scam”—but the people raising the alarm aren’t the ones profiting. Fossil fuel companies are. Lobbyists are. Politicians are. And yes, even media outlets like the one Toby Young runs are monetizing contrarianism. You’re pointing to taxpayer-funded science—open, peer-reviewed, international—and calling that the con, while ignoring trillions in fossil fuel subsidies and lobbying efforts to stall action.
You’re free to believe what you like. But it’s worth asking: What would real evidence of climate risk even look like to you? If your answer is “nothing would convince me,” then we’re not having a discussion about evidence at all—we’re just defending worldviews.
Re “You’re lumping together climate science, COVID vaccines, pollution, and wealth inequality as if they’re all part of the same global scam.”
You are talking bollox, can’t you read? I said “pollution and environmental degradation are real issues” so not a scam, your comment makes you look silly.
You are ‘narrative-building’ yourself, so don’t be so hypocritical. Everything is story anyway, haven't you grasped this yet? History is story, that's the whole point.
And you are the one with the cartoon villain, ‘Let’s all be scared rigid by climate change’, same play book with COVID ‘Scary alien looking virus’ nonsense.
Re “but the people raising the alarm aren’t the ones profiting.” Really?? You believe that do you?? Al Gore raised the alarm, he has done rather well off it. Ok, he’s a politician, but who are you saying is raising the alarm and not profiting? Scientists have jobs and positions to defend and arguing about climate is just one way to keep it all justified.
As for “taxpayer-funded science”, it is used to justify the vast sums of money on subsidies for ‘green’ technology. The taxpayer is used as the fall guy to pick up the tab.
Thanks for confirming the point. You do lump together climate science, COVID, and public policy into a single cynical narrative—even if you concede pollution is real. That’s precisely the problem: everything inconvenient gets waved off as a scam by default, with no meaningful effort to distinguish between science, policy, and grift.
Yes, history is made up of stories—but not all stories are equally grounded in evidence. There’s a difference between myth-making and reality-based inquiry. Climate science isn’t just a “narrative,” it’s the result of decades of empirical research from independent institutions around the world, converging on the same conclusions. If that’s just a “story,” it’s a remarkably coherent and predictive one, built on testable evidence.
And no, scientists don’t get rich by warning about climate change. Being a working climatologist is not some path to fortune. Al Gore didn’t write the IPCC reports, NOAA bulletins, or NASA datasets. He popularized them, and while you may dislike him, attacking his wealth doesn’t invalidate the science.
Subsidies, by the way, exist across all energy sectors—fossil fuels included. You’re angry about public investment in renewables, but silent about the trillions in global fossil fuel subsidies propping up legacy systems. That double standard suggests your real issue isn’t with subsidies—it’s with change.
You’re free to be skeptical. But if every source of evidence is dismissed as corrupt, and every critic is part of “the narrative,” you’re not engaged in serious analysis—you’re reinforcing a belief system that can’t be falsified. That’s ideology, not inquiry.
You are amusing CRC, twisting and turning what I say to suit your tale. I am realistic that’s all, having witnessed the constant fear mongering over various red herring issues to distract from real concerns over several decades. How old are you by the way?
But let’s cut through your condescending inaccurate crap CRC. I want, among other things, clean uncontaminated water and air, unpoisoned nutritious food and a world where the natural environment is respected and cared for. I want a world free from wars and pharmaceutical harms from vaccines and drugs.
I don’t want the land/seascape covered with solar panels and wind farms, damaging the sea beds, wildlife and reducing food production land.
What do you want?
Super brat
Грета вашла ва вкус по климату.🌐📡
Грета вашла ва вкус по климату.🌐📡
Грета вашла ва вкус по климату.🌐📡
Грета вашла ва вкус по климату.🌐📡
How dare she? A jumped up little girl who has been put on a pedestal by left wing environmental activists and who now supports terrorists in Gaza! How dare she lecture me! How dare she!
«a trace gas that comprises just 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere.»
Please tell us the significance of the number 0.04% in your essay.
«The truth is that many eminent scientists do not agree that the planet is on a highway to hell as a result of humans releasing carbon dioxide, a trace gas that comprises just 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere.»
You’re lying.
Why am I getting crap
A WEF controlled poisoned dwarf.
drrp WEF drrp
I enjoy disagreement but i am determined to avoid the shouty-blamey-personal attacks we have had to listen far too much to. By putting Greta Thunberg front and centre, not necessary for your argument, you create the moment for your first reply being to call her pure evil. So I'm out.
You’re not missing much. His article is loaded with drivel.
They’re all triggered by a twenty year old woman, who has more balls than all of them put together.