Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

The Groan, of course.

Last Friday, in an interview with BBC Breakfast, the Reform leader, Richard Tice, offered a summary, saying that the UK should scrap its net zero target since, he claimed, it would “make zero difference to climate change”. Instead, he argued we should simply adapt to global heating.

This seems to be a perfectly rational position. Climate changes. Adapt or die. He is factually correct that the insane net zero bollocks will make no difference as the big polluters will carry on anyway.

He then cited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a misleading attempt to bolster his position, before blaming the climate crisis on “the power of the sun or volcanoes”.

I’m not sure where Simon Evans thinks our climate comes from, but without the sun, we wouldn’t have one. Tectonic activity, of which volcanoes are a part, is a vital part of the carbon cycle. Tice is objectively correct in his statement here.

Asked by the interviewer why Reform didn’t seem to be concerned about “the future of the planet”, Tice replied: “Net zero will make zero difference to climate change, as confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that says if you get to net zero, it’ll make no difference to sea level rise for between 200 and 1,000 years. Actually, what we need to do with climate change – of course, we all care about the environment of the planet – we need to adapt to it. The idea that you can stop the power of the sun or volcanoes is simply ludicrous. Anyone who thinks you can, frankly, you’re misinformed.”

Again, correct. The idea that we can change the climate – or stop it – is hubris indeed. The climate has gone through immense change during the life of the planet. It has not remained static and only a deluded fool would expect it to. Oh, yeah, Evans is writing in the Guardian, so he is.

Contrary to Tice’s first falsehood, reaching net zero emissions is the only way to stop climate change, according to the IPCC. Second, far from saying that net zero makes no difference to sea level rise, the IPCC says the rise will be greater if emissions continue to increase.

Bollocks, frankly. ‘The science’ is a religion. The IPCC and other such groups cannot be relied upon to be objective, given that they are beholden to whomever funds them. The debate has become poisoned to the point where the usual suspects simply refer to a consensus as if that is scientifically robust. It is about as robust as saying a hail Mary.

What we are seeing here is a desperate attempt to undermine Reform UK. That they are doing so shows that they are taking the threat seriously.

Whenever I see the term ‘fact check’ my cynicism radar goes into overdrive. Fact check these days is a euphemism for falsehoods and propaganda. This is no different.

Finally, it is a fact that we humans are causing the climate crisis, not the sun or volcanoes as Tice implies.

Simply repeating this doesn’t make it so. The cherry picked data and screeching about consensus while shutting down dissent does not make it so.

Is the climate changing? The evidence suggests that it is, but nothing like as catastrophically as these charlatans would have us believe. Is human activity causing it? Given natural causes, such as tectonic and solar activity, the theory remains unproven, frankly. And, no, net zero won’t make a jot of difference. It will, however make our lives colder, darker, poorer and more miserable, which is the objective.


  1. Please refrain from using the term “big polluters” when referring to CO2 emissions. CO2 is a trace gas absolutely essential to life on earth, it is not pollution.

    Whatever climate change means for humans, and the climate is better now for us than during the famine ridden Little Ice Age, the planet does not need saving. The history of the earth demonstrates very clearly that the planet is at its healthiest and most abundant during periods of higher temperatures and CO2 levels. So the correct response to anyone who asks you why you don’t want to save the planet is to point out that it does not need saving from higher CO2, quite the opposite.

  2. It is very much a Chicken Little scenario where the sky is falling because … reasons.

    If they actually thought about things for a split nanosecond and looked at, for example, the Plymouth Rock which the Pilgrims carved the year of their arrival in America (1620) which was on the shoreline, then you can still see the rock 400 years later in the same place. Tell me about catastrophic sea level rise …

    There is this article about the recent Tongan volcanic eruption and its effects on the climate – since water vapour is the principal greenhouse element – and how much water the eruption put into the atmosphere:


    Similarly, as the Antarctic peninsula is part of the pacific Ring of Fire and has around ninety volcanoes under the ice, then if one erupts and melts the ice, then ZOMG!!!! we must stop doing whatever we need to do to halt Glowbull Warbling and non existent sea level rise.

    I’d genuinely like to know how knuckling down to the Green religion will halt volcanic eruptions. Answers on the back of a postcard to the usual address.

  3. ‘The science’ is a religion. And like many religions there are formal rituals and beliefs demanded of the faithful that look weird to people who don’t share that faith. That anyone outside the faith should cast doubt is seen as blasphemy, and needs no further ‘fact checking’ because in matters of faith facts are not important.

  4. “Again, correct. The idea that we can change the climate – or stop it – is hubris indeed. The climate has gone through immense change during the life of the planet. It has not remained static and only a deluded fool would expect it to. Oh, yeah, Evans is writing in the Guardian, so he is.”

    Yes, as you say, the Graun seem to think the Earth’s climate was unchanged for billions of years until the Industrial Revolution. Presumably the Graun do not believe the Earth has ever experienced ice ages.

  5. Thirty years ago I naively thought that this nonsense would have died a natural death by now due to none of the doom laden predictions of the alarmists coming to pass. The Bible tells you how to identify a false prophet so comparing climate alarmism to a religion seems quite apt. As it turns out, they just forgot about all those failed predictions, trotted out a few new ones and then pointed to every case of bad weather claiming that they were right all along. The claim that extra CO2 warms the atmosphere does have at least a small scrap of scientific support, if you conveniently ignore all the other factors that can effect it. The idea that extra CO2 can cause weather disasters of all kinds, hot, cold, flooding or draughts, is simply absurd.

  6. Deutronomy 18-22.
    when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

  7. Quis verificabit ipsos verificatores?

    (jk. I never learned Latin, apart from some commonly used phrases)

  8. Stonyground wrote: “Thirty years ago I naively thought that this nonsense would have died a natural death by now”
    Not while there’s a profit to be made, useful idiots scaremongered into believing it and there’s a profit to be made; and did I mention that there’s a fat profit to be made?

    • It is also very useful to the kind of people who love telling everyone else how to live.

  9. How I understand it we are in an interglacial period and probably overdue for the next ice age, so global warming is good because it delays the onset of the next ice age. I certainly remember all the fearmongering in the late 70s about how an ice age was just round the corner. Quite why some people want to live in a freezing hellscape by stopping this warming i dont know. Personally I think the uk could do with warmer weather.

  10. Here is a good piece on the ridiculous claims from the Met Office that we have just had the hottest May on record.


    We know that they are fiddling the figures, they know that they are fiddling the figures. If Global Warming is such a clear and present threat, why is this dishonesty necessary? the figures should speak for themselves. The fact is, they don’t, the case against CO2 is false.

Comments are closed.