The play must go on

It seems to me that we have turned a corner on climate change even if the lunacy rolls on. Many people now know that climate scientists cannot possibly forecast global temperatures decades into the future. Look at weather forecasts. The predicted catastrophes are pure fiction – always were.


Yes – for the political classes and senior global bureaucrats, fiction is the tool of choice. A fictitious narrative is much easier to promote than rational argument – harder to undermine too. Official fiction is fluid and adaptable with endlessly flexible storylines, subplots, dramas and even a covert sprinkling of impossibilities.

We see official fiction all the time, from tax policies to passive smoking, from fizzy death-drinks to housing policies. Official narratives are almost entirely fiction because fiction is elusive, malleable and it suits the backers.

Official fictions are easily spun into a tangle of storylines where the politicians themselves are the main characters and the central drama is not easily spoiled by a dose of reality shouted out by rude cynics sitting at the back. The performance may be panned by the critics, but who listens to them, darlings?

Climate change is unusual, because to their myopic surprise, a gaggle of third-rate scientists were recruited as main characters for a global production sponsored by the UN. It is also unusual in the sheer size of the audience. Millions middle class drama-lovers fully prepared to applaud the mad professors as they tried to strut their corduroy stuff on the global stage.

Initially that global audience swallowed the climate drama without demur, powerfully affected by the weepy, feelgood message behind ludicrous but gripping catastrophes. The villains of the piece were all rich too – how delightful! We like our fiction good and strong, but a dollop of finger-wagging makes even a Toyota Prius worthwhile.

This is why consensus was pushed so hard right from the start. 97% of climate scientists and all that. A powerful way to get the audience to suspend their disbelief and pay attention to the performance. They could even have a tiny role themselves by buying curly light bulbs, cycling to work and collecting rubbish.

Since climategate however, almost everyone who understands climate change knows the thing is a crock. The dramatic certainties once promoted with so much sanctimonious relish were not even likely, let alone settled science.

Yet many sad people still think the climate soap opera is real life because the storylines played on their sensibilities with such subtle success. Many still want to be on the side of righteousness whatever fictions they are required to swallow, however frequently their curly light bulbs fail to glow properly.

The play must go on – the backers insist.

It’s all very sad, because the drama never was real. It was and still is a badly acted UN scam. The problem we are left with is that it has all gone too far. Some have quietly backed off, but many can’t or won’t. Hoping for a green miracle, they doggedly keep faith with the warming storylines half-knowing them to be rather silly and a little dated.

What next? As far as I can see the play won’t close merely because part of the audience has wised up and the drama turned out to be a comedy of errors. The political narrative is too big, the backers too committed and this is surely a lesson in global governance.

Global stupidity is too big to unwind.

There is too much global investment in the climate drama, too many powerful vested interests, too much political kudos. The one positive is that it may be a salutary lesson for scientists offered a juicy role in the next piece of global fiction.

Or maybe there are too many drama-queen professors out there?

15 comments for “The play must go on

  1. Greg Tingey
    February 21, 2013 at 8:06 am

    In which case, why have the records for the past 40 years consistently shown an upward trend in temperatures worldwide?
    Why the progressive (though halting) earlier onset of all indicators of Spring & later onset of Autumn in this country?
    The latter, I remind you, monitored by many thousand individual recorders, so that the total error-bars are going to be very small.
    What ALTERNATIVE explanation do you have for this data, that fits all the facts, please?

    • Peter Whale
      February 21, 2013 at 4:34 pm

      Greg you pop up everywhere as a troll. Can you tell me what weather portrays no global warming?Can you tell me why the term global warming was changed to climate change? Can you tell me why co2 concentrations rise after warming and not before?Can you tell me why there has been no significant warming in the last 16 years although co2 has greatly increased?Can you tell me one person who denies climate change? Can you point to a time in history that climate where climate has never changed? I await your answer with bated co2 breath!

      • February 21, 2013 at 4:41 pm

        That’s a good selection of questions.

      • Greg Tingey
        February 21, 2013 at 6:13 pm

        Because the title mislead a lot of people (AIUI) the overall planet is getting warmer, but you may get local cooling
        [ e.g. a replay of the Younger Dryas, when huge glacial met in what is now N America shut down the Gulf stream for approx 1500 years – the planet went on warming, but N Europe got a lot colder – could esily happen again of the Greenland cal goes ]
        Co2 can go up after warming, simply because there will be more plant-life (unless it gets silly-hot, that is) & generally, as things get warmer, more gases will be released from wherever they are stored. It is/can be a runaway feedabck, that you really don’t want to happen.
        There has been warming in the past 16 years, your info is faulty – however it has slowed down a lot (relatively speaking) in the past 2-5 years.
        Climate changes, yes – & it can usually be dirctly linked to natural observable ot measureable external causes (e.g. solar radiation) that has NOT happened this time, and that is what is causing concern.

        I’m NOT an expert, but I hope that helps.

  2. SteveW
    February 21, 2013 at 10:47 am

    Nice turnaround there Greg.
    What empirical evidence do you have that anything currently occurring is outside the bounds of natural variation, or to couch that in a more general sense, what empirical evidence do you have to discount the null hypothesis?
    Or maybe something a little easier, what empirical evidence do you have to support the idea that climate feedbacks are net positive and how then would you then explain the fact that we have such a relatively stable climate?

    • February 21, 2013 at 4:44 pm

      “what empirical evidence do you have to discount the null hypothesis?”

      That’s a killer argument isn’t it? Climate scientists of the CO2 persuasion don’t appear to have dealt with it at all, yet it is fundamental to science, let alone climate science.

    • Greg Tingey
      February 21, 2013 at 6:15 pm

      Because the current variations do not match previously recorded ones, that have or had known natural, external causes.
      Therefore, the simplest explanation is that there is another, different cause – the most likely of which is human activity.

      • SteveW
        February 22, 2013 at 10:08 am

        So you have no empirical evidence and therefore resort to argumentum ad ignorantium – we can’t explain it so it must be…

        Also, I presume you’ll have no difficulty highlighting the difference between the allegedly ‘natural’ early 20th century warming and the allegedly ‘anthropogenic’ late 20th century warming as you seem so convinced the one differs materially from the other, so I look forward to you pointing out what sets them apart from one another.

      • David A. Evans
        February 23, 2013 at 1:50 pm

        However, if you were watching the GISS figd data in November 2009, you would have noticed that literally overnight 1934 went from joint warmest with 1998 to 6th warmest. 2006 went from 6th warmest to joint warmest with 1998 and if you look now, 2006 is warmer than 1998.
        Strange that…

  3. Sackerson
    February 21, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Do a few decades prove anything?

    “The new results show that during the Eemian period 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today.”

    Up with strawberries and down with polar bears!

    • February 21, 2013 at 4:47 pm

      “Do a few decades prove anything?”

      No. My guess is that we need many more decades of patient and accurate data collection before we’ll have any chance of untangling the complexities. Maybe even longer.

    • Greg Tingey
      February 21, 2013 at 6:17 pm

      AND err, what was the sea-level during that period?

      • Sackerson
        February 21, 2013 at 8:35 pm

        Don’t know, Greg. Can anyone establish? Also, don’t know what global temperature was elsewhere at the same time.

  4. February 21, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    Nice one.

  5. DaveK
    February 22, 2013 at 12:12 am

    Sackerson, we don’t even know what the temperature was in the 1930’s. We thought we did, but apparently they had to be changed. it did make the graph a little scarier though.

Comments are closed.