Angry Outbursts, But No Facts–The Climate Alarmists’ Playbook

By Paul Homewood

Events over the last week or so have included a number of episodes in which climate alarmism has intensified in the face of criticism. For at least two decades now, we have become used to hypersensitive reactions from greens: explosive reactions to being challenged. But whereas that routine of confected outrage may have served the political agenda well in the past, climate scientists’ amateur dramatics today signal something rotten, and not just about the actors. The tired script and empty theatre, too – institutional science – is revealed to be bent and rotten to the core.

“We are in a climate crisis, and we don’t necessarily need people who suggest otherwise,” stated Dr Paul Dorfman from Sussex University, in his closing words during a short debate with me on Talk TV. It was a sinister rejoinder from an expert who seemed to have risen through academic ranks without ever having been challenged, but who completely unravelled during the 12-minute discussion.

Read the full story here.

I watched the footage and Ben deserved a medal for his patience with the outright lies, ad homs, talking over and the plethora of silly faces and hand gestures you would expect from a petulant schoolgirl.

It is of course the same modus operandi we have seen lots of times from the likes of the clown Jim Dale and eco-zealot Donnachadh McCarthy.

The beauty was that Dorfman was there under false pretences anyway. He was introduced as Chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, which you might think has something to do with the nuclear industry.

It does not. It is just another arm of the green blob, lobbying for renewables, as its own website makes clear:

Nuclear Consulting Group comprises leading academics and experts in the fields of environmental risk, radiation waste, energy policy, environmental sustainability, renewable energy technology, energy economics, political science, nuclear weapons proliferation, science and technology studies, environmental justice, environmental philosophy, particle physics, energy efficiency, environmental planning, and participatory involvement.

https://www.nuclearconsult.org/about/

The fact that Greenpeace supports NCG says it all!

As for nuclear, several articles written by Dorfman, which are linked on the NCG website, are anti nuclear, such as one he wrote for the Guardian in June, titled “New nuclear would be too late and too costly”, when he stated “New nuclear has limited operational need and a poor business case”

I have no objection to a renewables lobbyist appearing on Talk TV, but viewers should surely be told just who he is?

The topic of this interview was to discuss why UK electricity prices are so high. Dorfman naturally blamed gas.

But surely, as a self proclaimed expert on energy policy, he must know that we are subsidising renewables to the tune of £17 billion this year, plus another £3 billion needed to balance the grid purely to cope with the intermittency of wind and solar?