On being a climate sceptic, covid sceptic and all-round academic pariah
Last week I was interviewed by Laurie Wastell of the Climate Sceptic on how I became an academic pariah after combatting both the 'official' climate and covid narratives. Our discussion also addressed the cultural Marxist mindset that is at the root of academic corruption - and that ultimately has penetrated all of the institutions (This is an edited version of the interview that appeared on the Climate Skeptic Podcast Episode 4):
The video is 36 minutes:
0:00-2.10 My academic career
2:10-4:40 What mathematical training has informed my dissident perspective
4:40- 13:20 My BBC career and the background to “Climate Change By Numbers”
13:20-24:30 Challenging the covid narrative and its ‘settled science’
24:30-26:22 Academic corruption and its underlying cultural Marxism
26:22-28:40 My cancellation from NHS Conference and their claim that I was a “Hitler supporter”
28:40-32:00 The problem with Government funding for AI research
32:00-36:00 The bleak outlook for the UK with doubling down on DEI and net zero policies
Here is section about the BBC and “Climate Change By Numbers”. For some reason YouTube sent me this mesage about the video “After conducting an additional review of the video, we’ve determined that it is not suitable for all advertisers. As a result, it will run limited or no ads.”
I reported more details about my “Climate Change by Numbers” here:
Climate Change By Numbers: 10 Years on
The “man-made climate change” scam is in the news again because of the developments in the case of “Climate Professor” Michael “hockey stick” Mann versus Mark Steyn. Although last year Mann “won” his ludicrous 12-year defamation case against Steyn for calling out Mann’s hockey stick nonsense, the case exposed Mann for the pompous academic lowlife he is.
Also, I provided a detailed explanation of why the 95% claim was an example of the prosecutors’ fallacy in this Global Warming Policy Foundation report:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period...
"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way".
- Michael Crichton, “Aliens Cause Global Warming” https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
What a shocking tale of persecution by the state for telling the truth. Talk about 1984! I can understand Professor Fenton’s gloomy outlook for the future. The only thing that cheers me up these days is the excellent progress President Trump is making in “draining the swamp” in the USA. Could we yet see Obama and his RussiaGate co-conspirators go to jail? That might waken up a few more people over here.
Here’s a more optimistic view of the future just out from historian Dr Gregory Slysz on TCW: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/our-world-will-get-much-worse-before-it-gets-better-but-bring-it-on/.