Thursday, May 23, 2024
HomeCulture WarAre these questions too tough for Dame Norma to answer? 

Are these questions too tough for Dame Norma to answer? 


Readers will recall TCW writer Gillian Dymond’s attempts to get a straight answer from Dame Norma Redfearn, Mayor of North Tyneside, about why North Tyneside Council has signed up to UK100, ‘a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target’. You can catch up with the saga here.

I SENT this on April 5 but so I have had only an automated reply, and one saying that my email would be brought to her attention.

 Dear Dame Norma,

I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I put to you in my email of March 5 2024, when I asked you to:

1) Point me to any evidence of anthropogenic climate change sufficient to outweigh the contra-indications of eminent dissenting scientists; and

2) Send me a copy of any comprehensive risk/benefit study of the entire Net Zero agenda which you can lay your hands on.

I am tempted to assume that you are unable to satisfy either request. Perhaps, however, I am being a little impatient, and you have not yet had sufficient time to assemble the material in question.

Meanwhile, evidence undermining the entire anthropogenic climate-change agenda continues to accumulate. I would draw your attention, in particular, to Martin Durkin’s recently released film, Climate: The Movie, which not only allows some of the many scientists who dispute the ‘consensus’ to show why they disagree with the official ‘narrative’, but demonstrates clearly how the alleged ‘consensus’ has been achieved.

The running time of the film is approximately one hour and twenty minutes. Should you be too busy to sit down and watch it, you can find a full transcript in four parts hereherehere and here; to whet your appetite, I quote below statements from some of the scientists interviewed.

Professor William Happer, one of America’s leading physicists, science adviser to three presidents, and professor of physics at both Columbia and Princeton universities: ‘There’s this mischievous idea that’s promoted that scientific truth is determined by consensus. In real science, you know, there are always arguments. No science is ever settled.’

Dr John Clauser, Nobel Laureate for physics: ‘The science that’s being done is appallingly bad, in my opinion. There are a large number of scientists who are in violent disagreement. They refer to themselves as sceptics.  Since I am no longer worried about losing funding or a job or whatever, I call myself a climate-change denier.’

Professor Steven Koonin, another of America’s leading physicists, science adviser to President Obama, and vice-president and provost of the California Institute of Technology: ‘If you want to qualify for money that’s labelled “climate”, well, you take whatever you’re doing, and you add a little bit of climate-speak to it, and away you go.’

Dr Roy Spencer, US Science Team leader NASA’s Aqua Satellite: ‘If Congress is willing to pay you to find evidence of global warming, by golly, as a scientist, we’re gonna go find evidence of it, because that’s what we’re being paid to do. And guess what? If we don’t find evidence, or say the evidence suggests it’s not a problem, your funding ends.’

Professor Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph and expert in statistical analysis: ‘So all I have to do is add a little wrinkle to my grant application, to explain how, well, I’m worried that climate change will mean the death of all the maple trees, and so right away you qualify for funding.’

Professor Matthew Wielicki, geologist: ‘There’s a huge incentive to over-exaggerate or to speak in hyperbole, even if the data doesn’t support exactly what you’re saying, because that’s what brings the funds . . . [E]verything in the hiring pool had “climate” somewhere attached to the name.’

Tony Heller, geologist: ‘This is a huge, big-money scam.  A lot of people’s livelihoods depend on it.’

Dr Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist in the Solar and Stellar Physics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: ‘When we started to estimate that the sun change by quite – you know, quite significantly, in terms of climatic sense, immediately they attack us then, because it’s not following the narrative, because they need the CO2 to be the only one, the only dominant player.’

Professor Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, formerly Harvard and Smithsonian: ‘When you tried to say, well, you see, we’re just looking for the background of natural variability, the response would be, we can’t have natural changes as an affect, it has to be human cause.’ 

Professor McKitrick: ‘If a scientifically qualified person stands up and says, “We don’t see an upward trend in the data on Pacific typhoons,” well, suddenly they lose standing . . . not because what they said is wrong, but because it’s off-message. They can marginalise any kind of criticism of the narrative by saying, “You’re not qualified to talk about this, because you don’t support the narrative.” . . . And then, having marginalised everyone who doesn’t support the narrative, they can turn around and say, “Well, everyone who counts supports the narrative, so we must be right”.’

Professor Nir Shaviv, Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: ‘If you don’t agree with their standard polemic, you become an outcast, you’re shunned. As if you have leprosy.’

Professor Wielicki: ‘To speak up about climate change in any sort of sceptical way was essentially career suicide, absolutely . . . This is one of the reasons you can build a consensus in a community, because anyone who is sceptical of that consensus essentially gets kicked out of the community.’

Professor Happer: ‘If I were 30 years old in a university, trying to make a career, I would certainly keep my mouth shut.’

Tony Heller: ‘You have to go along with the global warming story.  If you know that you’re gonna get cut off, you’ll lose funding, you’re gonna get your career ruined, you’re gonna be trashed by the community, you’ll be despised by your co-workers . . .’

Professor Koonin: ‘I see my job as a scientist as just laying out the facts . . . When you can’t talk about the facts, things become corrupt.’

Please make an effort to watch the film or, at the very least, to read the transcripts.

I look forward to receiving your response to the questions addressed to you on March 5.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Gillian Dymond
Gillian Dymond
Gillian Dymond is 78, a mother and grandmother living in the north-east of England.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.