FOI Emails Reveal Plot to 'Re-educate' Boris Johnson About Climate Change
“Should we be worried that the range of climate sensitivities hasn’t changed?”
Thirty-eight emails, released under a FOI request, reveal technocrats within Whitehall plotted to manipulate Boris Johnson to push their climate change agenda, ahead of a Cabinet Office presentation.
The event, on January 28th 2020, was led by the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance and presented, using 11 slides, by the Chief Scientist of the Met Office, Professor Stephen Belcher. According to Belcher, the stated goal of the presentation was to “stabilise climate which requires net zero emissions”.
On the day of the meeting, one of the attendees Richard Barker, the Head of Energy and Environment at the National Physical Laboratory, circulated an email noting that a picture was to be painted about the current climate situation and some of the challenges we see, adding: “However my assumption is that we want this meeting to establish the big opportunity for us to take a big step forward.”
Patrick Vallance was the government advisor who presented fake data about Covid cases to scare Johnson into a second lockdown and, it would appear that he is at it again. At the UN a month before Johnson told humanity to “grow up“. Any doubts he might have had about what he was told by selected scientists during his premiership seem to have disappeared since he intriguingly added: “It is time for us to listen to the warnings of the scientists – and look at Covid, if you want an example of gloomy scientists being proved right.”
in January 2020, whilst one set of scientists were busy making doom-laden predictions about Covid, another was busy planning to get Johnson on board their Net Zero agenda. A day before the meeting, an email on behalf of Sir Patrick Vallance identified the elephant-in-the-room saying: “Should we be worried that the range of climate sensitivities hasn’t changed,” a clear admission that the climate has not risen for well over a decade.
Last year, Professor Nicola Scafetta from the University of Naples analysed 38 of the main climate change models and found that most of them had overestimated global warming over the last 40 years. Many of them should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”, he said.
The repeated trick of climate modellers has been to present the data up to 2010 and then chop-off the years between 2011 and 2021 because they show that average Mean temperatures have remained stable for that entire decade.
In 2019, 48 Italian science professors led by nuclear antimatter discoverer Antonino Zichichi said in an open letter to their Government that catastrophic predictions of climate models were “not realistic”. In their view, all the facts suggested that the models overestimated the human contribution to climate change and underestimated the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon and by the oceanic oscillations.
In a further email, Vallance suggested to Belcher that No. 10 will want an answer to the question “why are the numbers so round, e.g. 2050 targets and 1.5°C etc.”. Again, Vallance will have to have provided fake data and pseudoscience because neither targets having any basis in scientific fact.
Media comments on the meeting have been of the ‘why are we still having to do this’ variety. “It is shocking he had his Damascene moment in 2020 given how much effort scientists have made to communicate the risks of climate change over the years,” said Emily Shuckburgh, Head of Cambridge Net Zero, the university’s climate change initiative. Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research tweeted that the slides showed “elementary climate info”, adding: “One would have hoped that this is basic knowledge of every politician since decades on the planet and doesn’t have to be shown in 2020! Alas…”.
What Patrick Vallance failed to do was inform Johnson of the real origins of the 1.5 Degree target: It was the founding director of the Potsdam Institute who is credited with first putting an arbitrary target ceiling on the rise in global temperatures. IPCC lead author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is said to be the father of 2°C, an earlier IPCC target. Asked in 2010 by the German Der Speigel newspaper why he had imposed the “magical limit”, he replied: “Politicians like to have clear targets and a simple number is easier to handle.”
Vaccine Deal Set to Make Patrick Vallance a Multi-Millionaire as Shares Rocket