The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series

Part 5 of 8:

Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington

Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change
Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science
Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg
Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington
Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine
Part 8 of 8: Solutions

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2014

Full resolution jpg

*All individuals and organizations receive 3 full days of pre-publication notice.


*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one. In Part 3 I explain why I'm a climate denier and not a climate skeptic.


*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).


This article is the fifth instalment of an ongoing series of articles to unpackage the entire man-made CO2 climate change cult.



Damian Carrington begins his environmental reporting at the Guardian in 2008 and comes out swinging. In his September 2008 article Carrington moves into a battle mode mentality to fight the scourge of the universe, CO2 emissions:

Sieges, dull and monotonous, are the wise general's choice. And in the context of carbon dioxide emissions, the siege strategy equates to energy efficiency. That means switching stuff off, or building it to use less energy in the first place.

I know, that is not dazzling; it's dreary. And yet this death-by-a-million-cuts approach is one of our greatest hopes of preventing catastrophic climate change. [1]


The problem is that Carrington's death by a million cuts approach is due to his environmental ideologies. It doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality. The idea that the Earth will die from a few cuts or a million cuts via humans is merely an interesting theory.


Just like Part 4 in an email request for comment I ask Carrington the same six questions I ask Suzanne Goldenberg:

1) Do you believe that all environmental journalists should believe in the man-made CO2 climate change theory?

2) If so, do you believe that this skews objective impartial reporting on environmental issues?

3) Do you believe that objective impartial reporting is even possible in regards to environmental issues?

4) Are you aware of your own environmental ideologies?

5) Do you believe that your environmental ideologies are problematic in regards to reporting on all environmental issues?

6) What is your ideology of the Earth in regards to consciousness? Is the Earth a conscious living being that exhibits consciousness, like that of humans, but independent of the Christian god?


Carrington doesn't respond.


Carrington's solutions are small in action but large in impact, such as creating energy efficient standards and doing away with incandescent bulbs (which are now a reality). [1] But there's an interesting twist.


By this logic every small action potentially helps the whole planet. This also means that every small action can potentially damage the whole planet. The fact that 7 billion humans are breathing out CO2 every second is, according to Carrington's logic, causing damage to the whole planet.


Of course CO2 cult believers aren't dumb enough to make this claim because it would lead to a mass suicide of their cult out of mercy for the planet.


Just like Goldenberg, Carrington isn't exempt from garbage articles (in fact he specializes in them). In Carrington's January 2011 article he writes a puff piece for Lester R Brown's environmental book about a "food bubble" ready to burst due to an unsustainable water supply (In a September 2013 article I critique Brown's 2008 book Plan B 3.0). [2] The claims are nonsensical as usual:

Another disaster in a big grain producing region would see grain prices "going off the top of the chart", Brown predicts. At that point, nations ban exports, pushing prices higher and oil is bartered for food.

The bubble exists because food is being produced by the unsustainable use of its key resource, water.

There are 175 million people in China and 130 million people in India who live on food grown from unsustainable water supplies, according to Brown's Earth Policy Institute. Half the world lives in countries where the water table is falling, he notes. [2]




I'll repeat what I mention in Part 1:

Agriculture is still a significant part of the California economy. Yes, they are experiencing record droughts. So what are they doing about it? They're complaining that Mother Nature isn't tending to their every need in a fixed agricultural market. While the solution is painfully obvious I'll flush it out anyways. Water the crops yourself. That's it. A drip irrigation system is an inexpensive and efficient way to water any crops. But where's the water going to come from? Sigh. Looking at California geographically, I find a large body of water called the Pacific Ocean right off its coast. The process of filtering the water is called desalination. And the best part is that municipal governments in California are already moving toward this solution. [3]


In Carrington's February 2011 article he uses a cyclone's existence and potential intensity to argue that man-made CO2 climate change is at work:

Immediate attention should be upon those in danger from Yasi. But a big question in the aftermath will be whether the battering Australia has taken from extreme weather, on top of its recent long drought, will shift the country's stubborn streak of sceptical opinion on climate change.

Following the recent general election - seen by some as the world's first climate change
election - cyclone Yasi could be a tipping point for opinion, suggest observers
. [4]


This is manipulative environmental journalism at its worst.


In another February 2011 article Carrington claims that the drought in the Amazon will lead to Earth reaching the "tipping point" of no return:

Billions of trees died in the record drought that struck the Amazon in 2010, raising fears that the vast forest is on the verge of a tipping point, where it will stop absorbing greenhouse gas emissions and instead increase them.

The dense forests of the Amazon soak up more than one-quarter of the world's atmospheric carbon, making it a critically important buffer against global warming. But if the Amazon switches from a carbon sink to a carbon source that prompts further droughts and mass tree deaths, such a feedback loop could cause runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences. [5]



I'll mention a point from Part 1 again:

No forests/plants are "vulnerable" to man-made CO2 climate change. Plants and trees predate humans and animals. They have billions of years worth of evolution and the ability to adapt to changing environments locked in their DNA. The idea that the last 40 years or even the last 200 years of man-made CO2 climate change causes them to be "vulnerable" is nonsensical. Trees and plants are only vulnerable to deforestation, not man-made CO2 climate change. [3]


I use two peer-reviewed articles to back up my claim. I recommend readers to read Part 1 if they're confused.


Carrington even shoots himself in the foot with his own words in his 2011, 2012 and 2013 articles:

Scientists know from the geological record that the Earth's climate can change rapidly. They have identified a number of potential tipping points where relatively small amounts of global warming caused by human activities could cause large changes in climate. [5]

The last great global ice melt the planet witnessed came 11,700 years ago at the end of a deep ice age. As glaciers retreated, a benign and balmy climate emerged in which the human race has flourished. Our entire civilisation is built on the warm soils left as the ice sheets melted. [6]

The future of a globally warmed world has been revealed in a remote meteorite crater in Siberia, where lake sediments recorded the strikingly balmy climate of the Arctic during the last period when greenhouse gas levels were as high as today.

Unchecked burning of fossil fuels has driven carbon dioxide to levels not seen for 3m years when, the sediments show, temperatures were 8C higher than today, lush forests covered the tundra and sea levels were up to 40m higher than today. [7]


Obviously, prior to the industrial revolution humans aren't emitting any significant amount of CO2 emissions, yet Earth's climate still changes rapidly. This fact demonstrates that man-made CO2 is not a driving force for changes in the Earth's climate. The fact that Carrington and other environmental journalists don't realize this is because they're part of the CO2 cult and are blind to their own environmental ideologies.


Carrington's March 2011 article demonstrates his support for ideological science (science that supports ones ideologies):

Previous research has shown that global warming made the 2003 heatwave at least twice as likely, but modelling studies have not yet been done that might demonstrate the link between climate change and the 2010 heatwave. Last month, scientists showed that climate change made the 2000 floods that swamped England two to three times as likely to happen. [8]


The modeling studies are attempting to find a way to prove a causal link between man-made CO2 climate change and heatwaves/floods. This is junk impartial science.


In one of Carrington's May 2011 articles he asserts the dire status of Middle Eastern countries relative to their supply of water. [9] Yes, there's not enough freshwater for everyone in the world, hence, world governments should make use of the large bodies of water called "oceans."


An interesting thought experiment begins to formulate in my mind. If the majority of municipal, state or national governments around the world use desalination would it lower the global sea level?


In an email request for comment I ask Carrington about this possibility.


He doesn't respond.


In email requests for comment I ask oceanographers and earth science experts:

2) Hypothetically, if a majority of the world governments used desalination as their source for water (ocean water), instead of freshwater/ground water, would it make a difference in the global sea level (since oceans are so vast), based on current rates of global water consumption? If so, by how much?


Dr. Leonard Konikow (USGS) says:

"Most global water consumption is for agricultural purposes. It would probably be technically and economically impossible to meet all of that usage through desalinization. So this question is indeed very hypothetical. Desalination also creates a waste stream of very salty water or brine, which has to be disposed of--probably back into the ocean. Some of the desalinated water being used would also eventually circulate back into the oceans. Previous water diversions that are replaced by desalination would increase the flow rates of river and groundwater discharge to the oceans. Given all of these factors, and without any in-depth analysis, I would guess that large-scale desalination efforts would have almost no effect on sea-level rise."


Professor Eelco J. Rohling (Australian National University) says:

"...this will be negligible, or a small drop (saline contraction effect as freshwater is extracted and brine pumped back in). Question is: why would we even think of doing this. Certain regions, yes, but all of humanity - why? It's very expensive (also an environmental cost), as it requires much energy, and in vast tracts of the world there is plenty surface water. Not many places rely on old groundwater (aquifers). Most places rely on surface water and young (rapidly recharged) groundwater. Those places have no need to go to desalinisation."


Dr. John Church (CSIRO Australia) says:

"I do not think this would make a significant difference to sea level."


Professor Ken Miller (Rutgers) says:

"It is scale or less look at the total effects of groundwater and dams."


Professor Robert Nicholls (University of Southampton) says:

"I doubt this has much effect and I am unaware of any study that evaluates this factor."


Dr. Yoshihide Wada (Utrecht University, Netherlands):

"Presently, global water consumption is around 1800 km3/year. 90% of this consumption is for irrigation. If hypothetically people use desalination water to supply this amount, this will at least cancel out groundwater depletion (pumping) that contributes to SLR (0.3-0.5mm/year). Importantly, most of water that is used for irrigation will go back to [the] ocean again, via crop evapotranspiration and then precipitation and/or runoff.

Currently, desalination water use is around 10-15km3/year so, it would be very unrealistic to assume this. And the desalination is suited for those coastal areas only since transport of water is very expensive. Desalination is also energy intensive."


I argue that global desalination will lower the global sea level over time. The UN's Vital Water Graphics for 2025 represent about 4800 cubic km/year of global water use. [10] Multiplying this by 100 years (a century) equals a total of 480,000 cubic km of water. But I argue that the UN graph doesn't take into account the people of Africa and South East Asia consuming water like their North American brethren do. Increasing domestic use by at least 5 times, the result changes to 9600 cubic km/year, and 960,000 cubic km of water over a century.


I also argue that 960,000 cubic km of water usage from desalinated ocean water will lower the global sea level by at least a few inches.


The usual criticism to desalination is the excess energy to separate the water. Fair enough. But the fact that humans are still using reverse osmosis or carbon membranes for desalination represents a lack of ingenuity.


I believe that electrochemically mediated seawater desalination and Electrodialysis innovations, [11] [12] represent the future of desalination.


And the best thing about this drinking water solution is that it will solve the land subsistence problem (sinking land) that exists due to the extraction of groundwater. Hitting two birds with one stone.


Not bad for a simple philosopher blogger.


Now where's my Nobel prize?


In Carrington's May 2011 article he paints a picture of alarmism but at least provides a solution for it:

The siren sounded by the IEA data is loud and clear. The world's economy is expanding again and belching out more carbon. The benign climate we have known since the dawn of civilisation looks about to blow. We are going to have to start re-engineering the global economy right now.

If not, we will be forced into the even more daunting task of trying to re-engineer the Earth. [13]


The idea that the war on CO2 is even necessary is a joke. The idea that geo-engineering will "have to occur" is due to a lack of understanding and connection with nature.


Carrington, like most environmental journalists and activists, believe that they're representing and fighting for the Earth. Unless these individuals have some sort of divine insight I don't think that the Earth is asking them to do so.


In Carrington's September 2011 article his alarmism (like most CO2 cult believers), is in high gear with emotional manipulation:

Ice is the white flag being waved by our planet, under fire from the atmospheric attack being mounted by humanity. From the frosted plains of the Arctic ice pack to the cool blue caverns of the mountain glaciers, the dripping away of frozen water is the most crystal clear of all the Earth's warning signals.

Despite every government and science academy on the planet agreeing that climate change is real and must be addressed, the hot fumes of industry continue their relentless upward trend. As the white flag shrinks yet further, the chance to limit the impact of that melting is dripping through our hands. [14]


It continues in his September 2012 article:

Our planet is waving the white flag of surrender. But as the polar flag becomes ever more tattered, with holes scorched by hotter ocean waters, humanity pumps ever more globe-warming gases into the air.

Today, that 2007 record is smashed and the shredded white flag is now flickering rathering than flashing. But the danger is greater than even, even if the alarm signal is frayed. [6]


Who is the Earth surrendering to? The will of humanity? Once all the ice melts will it be the end of humanity? Of course not. Humans will adapt, as they always have.


Carrington's November 2011 article paints the same alarmism:

The IEA predict a temperature rise of 3.5C if current energy policies around the world are delivered but no more. That means a future world of mass migration, severe water shortages and England having the summer climate of Morocco today. If those policies fail to materialise, the IEA predicts 6C. That's Armageddon: large parts of the planet uninhabitable and the risk of runaway warming threatening the rest. [15]


CO2 cult believers like Carrington are apparently incapable of recognizing the fact that human ingenuity is quite capable of adapting to practically all potential catastrophes. This lack of understanding and dogmatic environmental beliefs is quite surprising relative to his remarks in July 2011:

Does the IPCC's crucial work make it above journalistic scrutiny or criticism? Absolutely not. Journalists should work without fear or favour, and I have done so myself in relation to information in the US diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks on how some senior IPCC figures were appointed.

It is true that a perception of bias can be damaging, even if it is groundless. But that perception comes from biased reporting, shorn of proper context and omitting crucial facts. [16]


It's a shame that Carrington isn't able to apply this logic to his own CO2 environmental ideologies.


In another November 2011 article Carrington takes a shot at the hacker who causes Climategate 2009 with the title:

Failure to catch climate email hacker is the real scandal. [17] it's not.


That's like saying that catching Edward Snowden is the real scandal instead of the global surveillance system.


In an email request for comment I ask Carrington if he believes that the US government's failure to catch Snowden is the real scandal relative to his November 2011 article.


He doesn't respond.


However, I'll concede that it's quite odd that no one catches the Climategate 2009 hacker as of October 2014. Either the hacker is a genius like Snowden, or he/she/they have help from private interest groups who are covering their tracks for them.


Like most CO2 cult believers, Carrington regurgitates IPCC claims in his articles to "package the information properly" for the global general public:

Those holding the fringe opinions that climate change is not a problem and needs no action seek to hide in uncertainty. This new report shows very clearly there is simply nowhere credible to hide, unless you are prepared to gamble with human lives at very poor odds.

Furthermore, with every step forward in understanding of the complexities of weather, climate and warming, the odds worsen. Studying extreme weather is hard as the events are by definition rare. But painstaking and labour-intensive studies of some events have revealed the smoking gun of global warming. [18]

The UK's dismal recent summers can be blamed on a substantial warming of the North Atlantic Ocean in the late 1990s, according to new scientific research. The shift has resulted in rain-soaked weather systems being driven into northern Europe, increasing summer rainfall by about a third.

The pattern is likely to revert to drier summers and may do so suddenly, according to Prof Rowan Sutton, at the University of Reading, who led the work. "I can't guarantee it but it is likely," he said. "However we are not sure of the timing, which is what every one wants to know - but we are working on this now." Sutton added that when the switch occurs, it could happen as rapidly as over two to three years. [19]

The extreme heatwaves, flooding and bush fires striking Australia have already been intensified by climate change and are set to get even worse in future, according to a new report. Only fast and deep cuts to carbon emissions can start to reverse the trend, say scientists from the Climate Commission, an independent advisory group set up by the Australian government. [20]

Extreme weather like the drought currently scorching the western US and the devastating floods in Pakistan in 2010 is becoming much more common, according to new scientific research.

The work shows so-called "blocking patterns", where hot or wet weather remains stuck over a region for weeks causing heatwaves or floods, have more than doubled in summers over the last decade. The new study may also demonstrate a link between the UK's recent flood-drenched winter and climate change. [21]


These November 2011, October 2012, April 2013 and August 2014 statements are quite interesting relative to his December 2010 statement:

The transport secretary has asked the government's chief scientist whether future winters are likely to continue to deliver extreme conditions. What's the likely answer?

The short answer is we don't know. Freezing winters should become less common, but whether short spells of heavy snow or low temperatures are on the rise is yet to be determined. [22]


While everyone has the right to change their mind on something at any moment in time, it's still interesting to note the changes.


Carrington's March 2012 article is excellent in advocating a solution to convert sewage treatment plants into power plants using fuel cell technology. [23] In June 2014 Edmonton's solid waste facility becomes the first municipality in the world to convert solid waste to biofuels. [24]


In September 2012 Carrington writes a garbage article referencing a federal report that connects hay fever with man-made CO2 climate change:

Hay fever sufferers face longer pollen seasons and highly allergenic new strains from invasive plants, a new report on the health effects of climate change on the UK warned on Tuesday.

Global warming will cause earlier flowering, possibly extending the hay fever season by six weeks, and enable new species to grow in the UK. Pollen is also getting more potent, packing more allergen into each grain. [25]


As I mention in Part 1, individuals are responsible for their own health and where they live. While various socio-economic spheres shape where an individual/family lives, no one says that life is fair.


In an October 2012 article Carrington disingenuously connects individuals on the low rung of the socio-economic ladder with food shortages due to man-made CO2 climate change:

Are rising bills at the supermarket checkout turning out to be the first tangible impact of climate change on the daily lives of all Britons? It very much seems so.

The damage wreaked by the dismal summer of 2012 on UK harvests was revealed on Monday and will push food prices up. In these austere times, with food banks feeding the hungry, that is going to hurt. [26]


Again, individuals are responsible for feeding themselves, be it through buying their own food from grocery stores or growing it themselves. Correlating man-made CO2 climate change with food shortages is understandable, but disingenuous.


In Carrington's November 2012 article he pushes the sea-level rise alarmism to a new level:

The study shows the melting of the two giant ice sheets has caused the seas to rise by more than 11mm in 20 years. It also found Greenland is losing ice mass at five times the rate of the early 1990s. [27]


20 years worth of high levels of CO2 produces 11mm of sea level rise? And this is cause for alarmism why? The fact that many CO2 cult believers (journalists and scientists) will claim that the 11mm causes various deaths when a hurricane strikes is truly disgusting junk science.


Oddly enough, Carrington specializes in garbage articles in 2013. In his January 2013 article Carrington talks about Britain's dangerous weather due to man-made CO2 climate change:

2012: the year Britain's weather turned dangerous.

Record rainfall led to widespread flooding, killing nine people, ruining crops and costing the country billions.

The deluges that made 2012 England's wettest on record left persistently sodden ground: fresh downpours caused rapid run-off and flash flooding in places once thought to be safe. In June, the forum helped people in West Sussex after homes were flooded. "They were absolutely shocked - they are a community that had never been flooded before," said Tucker. [28]


In an email request for comment I ask Carrington if he believes the February 1982 PEI snowstorm, the January-February 1977 Buffalo blizzard, the March 1971 Montreal snowstorm, the April 1967 Alberta blizzards, the great December 1947 Northeastern snowstorm, the November 1927 Vermont flood and the epic March 1888 Northeastern blizzard is due to man-made CO2 climate change.


He doesn't respond.


In another January 2013 article Carrington again hammers home the idea of starving individuals due to man-made CO2 climate change:

The world's food crisis, where 1 billion people are already going hungry and a further 2 billion people will be affected by 2050, is set to worsen as increasing heatwaves reverse the rising crop yields seen over the last 50 years, according to new research. [29]


Again, this is unintellectual journalism. In the past, high school (most likely now elementary), teaches students that the real problem isn't with the supply of food, but rather the unequal distribution of it due to corrupt and inefficient governments.


The fact that Carrington is incapable of recognizing this fact shows a lack of intellect.


But 2013 is apparently the year for garbage articles, and Carrington doesn't disappoint. In his April 2013 article he references a peer-reviewed article that connects man-made CO2 with bumpier flights:

Climate change will lead to bumpier flights caused by increased mid-air turbulence, according to an analysis by scientists of the impact of global warming on weather systems over the next four decades.

The increasing air turbulence results from the impact of climate change on the jet streams, the fast, mile-wide winds that whistle round the planet at the same altitude as airliners. The shifting of the jet stream over Europe has also been blamed for the UK's wash-out summer in 2012 and frozen spring this year.

Most injuries caused by clear-air turbulence occur to passengers not wearing their seatbelts, who hit their heads on the aircraft's ceiling. Williams said his new findings, the first to assess the impact of climate change on turbulence, has already changed his own behaviour: "I certainly always keep my seatbelt fastened now, which I didn't used to do." [30]


Keeping the seatbelt fastened because of man-made CO2 climate change?


'Nuff said.


The garbage articles continue in another April 2013 article where Carrington talks about the fact that children care about climate change:

British children are deeply concerned about the impact of climate change on their own lives and those of children on poorer nations, according to a new poll for Unicef. [31]


While the article seems admirable, the fact is that children can be molded quite easily to support any issue that their parents, teachers or society in general believe to be an important issue.


Carrington (like most environmental journalists) doesn't mention how many children/youth are polled, but has no problem in stating that 2/3 children/youth are worried about climate change.


This is powerfully unintellectual reporting.


Journalists that use polls to justify their argument or be the springboard for their article do so only because of their lack of intellect.


In May 2013 Carrington gets into the meat and potatoes of the issue, the stalling of global warming:

Prof Hansen said the focus by some on "details" was a smokescreen. "This is a diversionary tactic. Our understanding of global warming and human-made climate change has not been affected at all," he said. "It's because the deniers [of the science] want the public to be confused. They raise these minor issues and then we forget about what the main story is. The main story is carbon dioxide is going up and it is going to produce a climate which is going to have dramatic changes if we don't begin to reduce our emissions." In 2008, scientists anticipated an upcoming slowing in temperature rises. [32]


I'm going to have to call garbage on that last claim. Scientists don't anticipate upcoming slowing temperatures in 2008. They see a pattern from the past few years and change directions in their modeling because the modeling prior to 2008 is way off base.


In Carrington's June 2013 article he moves into climate warfare with the help of a UK Rear Admiral:

In his first interview since taking up the post, Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti said climate change was "one of the greatest risks we face in the 21st century", particularly because it presented a global threat. "By virtue of our interdependencies around the world, it will affect all of us," he said.

He said governments could not afford to wait until they had all the information they might like. "If you wait for 100% certainty on the battlefield, you'll be in a pretty sticky state," he said. [33]


The idea that man-made CO2 climate change is analogous to the killing of individuals on battlefields is powerfully stupid. And for Carrington to give a medium to such a voice demonstrates a new level of desperation to push governments to act on man-made CO2 emissions.


In an email request for comment I ask Carrington if the 2004 secret Pentagon climate change study is still credible in his eyes since the Observer is the media outlet that breaks the story. [34]


He doesn't respond.


In his September 2013 article Carrington calls out the climate skeptics as idiots and uses IPCC scientists to confirm it:

The IPCC states that the models, built on the basic laws of physics, now accurately represent a great many of the important climate phenomena. "If you are saying the models are flawed, you are saying the laws of physics are flawed," said Tim Palmer, at the University of Oxford. [35]


By criticizing the climate models you're criticizing the laws of physics? This is heavy ideological science at its best.


It reminds me of the history of slavery, when black slaves run away from their masters due to the fake mental disorder of draptomania. [36] It's disgusting science. And climate science is just as bad or close to it.


Carrington's November 2013 article is lacking. While it's true that the UK government has a serious flood problem being at sea level, the government solutions are minimal with insurance policies, but Carrington doesn't bother to offer any other solutions. [37] His February 2014 article isn't any better with a few methods in coping with the floods. [38]


The logical solution is to move the residential houses, build up the ground by about 10 meters, put the houses back and it should be good for another 1000 years. The build up can be done via concrete (artificial) or sand and rocks (natural). While the latter may seem like a joke, the government of Dubai builds artificial islands from sand and rock and has whole economies and industries sitting on top. [39]


The only reason that Western-European governments don't implement this plan is due to a lack of vision and funds. And in terms of lifting strength the strongest hydraulic press can lift 5200-60,000 tonnes. [40] That's good enough for residential houses and mid-sizes corporate buildings. The corporate skyscrapers will have to fend for themselves. It's their own fault for building massive structures at sea level.


Carrington's January 2014 article references a study that claims man-made CO2 climate change will significantly impact the El Nino weather phenomenon:

The world's most devastating global weather phenomenon - the weather events associated with "El Nino" - will double in frequency to once a decade if global warming remains unchecked, according to what scientists believe is a major step forward in the understanding of such events.

A study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, concludes that in stark contrast to earlier work, the current rate of carbon emissions would mean twice as many extreme El Ninos over the next 100 years, with profound socioeconomic consequences. [41]


The manipulation is overt and disturbing. Since CO2 cult believers are unable to claim El Nino as a natural phenomenon, they tweak climate models to show how man-made CO2 climate change is pumping it full of steroids, causing it to lash out uncontrollably. Truly unethical science.


Carrington's March 2014 article is a puff piece for the UK Met Office:

The UK's weather will become both too wet and too dry - and also too cold and too hot - as climate change increases the frequency of extreme events, the Met Office has warned in a new report.

Its scientists concluded that on average the UK will see wetter, milder winters and hotter, drier summers in the long term due to global warming. But the natural year-to year variability of weather will also mean occasional very cold winters, like that of 2010-11, and very wet summers, like that of 2012. [42]


It doesn't matter what the weather is outside, it's all because of man-made CO2 climate change. Truly disgusting junk science.


Carrington follows it up with another garbage article in March 2014 about coffee prices increasing due to man-made CO2 climate change:

Rich western urbanites expecting to dodge the impacts of climate change should prepare for a jolt: global warming is leading to bad, expensive coffee. Almost 2bn cups of coffee perk up its drinkers every day, but a perfect storm of rising heat, extreme weather and ferocious pests mean the highland bean is running out of cool mountainsides on which it flourishes.

"The rise in global temperature is of great concern for us in the coffee industry because it will - and has already started - putting the supply of quality coffee at great risk," said Dr Tim Schilling, executive director of the World Coffee Research programme, based at Texas A&M University. "It is also obvious that increasing temperatures - as well as extreme weather events - have a very negative affect on production. Over the long term, you will definitely see coffee prices going up as a result of climate change." [43]




Logically, if you can't function without a cup of coffee you're not in control of your life. If coffee, junk food, alcohol or drugs is making your choices for you, you're not in control. And if you're not in control of your life, success will always be a fleeting dream, never to be part of your reality.


Carrington's May 2014 article crosses a red line for garbage. But I shouldn't be so harsh. It's wrong to judge an individual's intellect when they haven't developed it yet. He references a peer-reviewed article that links high levels of CO2 (546-586 ppm) with declining crop nutrition:

Rising carbon dioxide emissions are set to make the world's staple food crops less nutritious, according to new scientific research, worsening the serious ill health already suffered by billions of malnourished people.

The surprise consequence of fossil fuel burning is linked directly to the rise in CO2 levels which, unlike some of the predicted impacts of climate change, are undisputed. The field trials of wheat, rice, maize and soybeans showed that higher CO2 levels significantly reduced the levels of the essential nutrients iron and zinc, as well as cutting protein levels.

"We found rising levels of CO2 are affecting human nutrition by reducing levels of very important nutrients in very important food crops," said Prof Samuel Myers, an environmental health expert at Harvard University, Boston, and lead author of the study. [44]


The reason why my blood is boiling is because I advocate organic farming/produce to a high degree. Looking at the peer-reviewed article I'm unable to find any reference to organic farming.


In an email request for comment I ask professor Samuel Myers, the lead author, if he includes crops from organic farms. He says:

"No they were not [organic crops]. These are multi-million dollar experiments to run (FACE experiments) and the goal is to approximate real world growing conditions for things like rice wheat and soy. Since most of the world consumes these commodities produced using non-organic farming approaches, it would have been hard to draw conclusions about the implications of our findings if they were constrained to organic conditions."


Fair enough.


However, I would take issue with his next email comments:

"The other critical point, however, is that we were comparing crops grown under identical conditions except that one set of plants was grown at elevated CO2 while the others were at ambient CO2. There is no reason to believe that this isolated CO2 effect would be different if we were comparing the same crops grown under the same CO2 concentrations but using organic techniques both inside and outside the FACE rings."


There are two reasons why this peer-reviewed article is problematic. The first reason is that plants can only absorb minerals from the soil. And since conventional GMO farming only relies on nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium as the vital components of soil, it will be devoid of nutrients.


Organic farming operates under the ideology of the soil being alive and enriching it with various natural materials.


But the real reason why this peer-reviewed article is problematic is because it ignores the gradualism of temperature conditions and the transposons and retrotransposons that plants/trees (and animals and humans) have.


Transposons refer to a transposable element in the genome of an organism. Simply put, genes can and do jump from one location to another to adapt to the changing environment. Barbara McClintock is the discoverer of this remarkable find in the late 1940s and early '50s. [45] [46] [47] The mainstream scientific industry ridicules and ignores her theory. [48] [49] In the 1980s they finally admit that her theory is correct and give her a Nobel prize. [50] While this is an attempt to honor her discovery it's also an attempt for mainstream scientists to cover their asses for their dogmatic mainstream scientific ideologies.


But getting back to the issue, transposable elements are what make it possible for plants/trees to adapt to changing environmental conditions:

A common feature of most retrotransposons is that they are activated by stress and environmental factors. [51]

Overall, the examples described previously strongly suggest a role of TEs [transposable elements] in the ability of the host to respond to changes in the environment. The evidence that only some specific TE families, and not all the TEs in the genome, are activated in response to stress and the evidence that these TEs respond to some specific stress conditions and not others, strongly suggest that activation of TEs by stress is not only a byproduct of genome deregulation. The consequences of TE activation in response to stress are diverse. Stress-activated TEs: (i) contribute to major genomic rearrangements...(ii) confer nearby genes the capacity to respond to stress...which may lead to the creation of new regulatory networks...and (iii) alter the genome randomly through insertion of the newly generated copies...Therefore, containing a certain number of potentially active TEs may increase the genome ability to cope with environmental changes.

Note that several of the works summarized in this review...strongly suggest that the particular cases described may represent the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, identifying TE insertions involved in environmental adaptation depends ultimately on our ability to identify a given nucleotide sequence as a TE or a TE remnant. As such, we are still likely underestimating the role of TEs in environmental adaptation just because of our limitations to identify TE insertions. [52]

Analysis of several hundred of these new mPing element insertions revealed that a number of them have conferred salt or cold inducibility on the genes into which they are inserted. This suggests that in cultivated populations, there may be thousands of new stress-inducible alleles. It will be interesting to see how many of these alleles have been subject to selection. This example demonstrates the important point that the rate at which variation is produced can vary by orders of magnitude in a few generations owing to the activity of TEs, and this rate can be responsive to exactly the kinds of environmental conditions that can impose strong selection pressures. [53]


I argue that FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment) experiments aren't accurate. Granted, they are the best method at measuring increased levels of CO2 on plants/trees outside of the lab; but nature doesn't surround plants/trees with a ring circle of CO2 blasting it in controlled sequences.


Also in May 2014, Carrington follows up the previous article with another garbage one stating that Climategate 2009 only has a fleeting effect. [54]


My response is two emails from Climategate 2009:

"This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor." "It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!" [55]

...I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! [56]


As a climate denier I can definitely state that these two emails will live on in infamy.


In Carrington's July 2014 article he references a peer-reviewed article that claims reducing red meat consumption will lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions. [57] This issue is quite controversial since it gets into the idea of governments interfering with the diets of its respective public via cutting subsidies. A very touchy issue. This is one of Carrington's best articles.


And finally, in Carrington's September 2014 article he uncovers secret funders of the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank. [58] This is also an excellent article. Just as climate deniers demand transparency over environmental private interest groups they have to be open to it themselves.


The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series will continue on October 17, 2014 with Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot




[1] Carrington, Damian. Make it sexy, make it enticing. Guardian. September 18, 2008.

[2] Carrington, Damian. Will climate change burst the global 'food bubble'? Guardian. January 28, 2011.

[3] Alli, Shawn. Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change. September 12, 2014.

[4] Carrington, Damian. Will cyclone Yasi push Australia into action on climate? Guardian. February 2, 2011.

[5] Carrington, Damian. Mass tree deaths prompt fears of Amazon 'climate tipping point.' Guardian. February 3, 2011.

[6] Carrington, Damian. Vanishing Arctic ice is the planet's white flag of surrender. Guardian. September 14, 2012.

[7] Carrington, Damian. Meteorite crater reveals future of a globally warmed world. Guardian. May 9, 2013.

[8] Carrington, Damian. Deadly heatwaves will be more frequent in coming decades, say scientists. Guardian. March 17, 2011.

[9] Carrington, Damian. The Middle East is running dry - and into the perfect storm? Guardian. May 19, 2011.

[10] Vital Water Graphics: Trends in global water use by sector. United Nations Environment Programme. 2008.

[11] Chemists Work to Desalt the Ocean for Drinking Water, One Nanoliter at a Time. University of Texas at Austin. June 27, 2013.

[12] New Desalination Technique Also Cleans and Disinfects Water. MIT Technology Review. February 11, 2014.

[13] Carrington, Damian. Climate change demands we reengineer the world economy now. Guardian. May 29, 2011.

[14] Carrington, Damian. Melting ice is Earth's warning signal - and we cannot ignore it. Guardian. September 25, 2011.

[15] Carrington, Damian. The burning issue of energy cannot wait for economic good times. Guardian. November 9, 2011.

[16] Carrington, Damian. In defence of the IPCC: critics ignore the real scandal. Guardian. July 28, 2011.

[17] Carrington, Damian. Failure to catch climate email hacker is the real scandal. Guardian. November 23, 2011.

[18] Carrington, Damian. Extreme weather: We're gambling with lives at ever worsening odds. Guardian. November 18, 2011.

[19] Carrington, Damian. Warm North Atlantic Ocean causing UK's wet summers, study shows. Guardian. October 7, 2012.

[20] Carrington, Damian. Climate change making extreme events worse in Australia - report. Guardian. April 2, 2013.

[21] Carrington, Damian. Extreme weather becoming more common, study says. Guardian. August 11, 2014.

[22] Carrington, Damian. Q&A: Why is it so cold this winter? Guardian. December 20, 2010.

[23] Carrington, Damian. New device heralds potential to turn sewage plants into power stations. Guardian. March 1, 2012.

[24] Bartko, Karen. Edmonton first in world to turn trash into biofuel. Global News. June 4, 2014.

[25] Carrington, Damian. Climate change will extend hay fever season by six weeks, report warns. Guardian. September 11, 2012.

[26] Carrington, Damian. Rising food prices are climate change's first tangible bite into UK lives. Guardian. October 10, 2012.

[27] Carrington, Damian. Greenland and Antarctica 'have lost four trillion tonnes of ice' in 20 years. Guardian. November 29, 2012.

[28] Carrington, Damian. 2012: the year Britain's weather turned dangerous. Guardian. January 4, 2013.

[29] Carrington, Damian. Global food crisis will worsen as heatwaves damage crops, research finds. Guardian. January 13, 2013.

[30] Carrington, Damian. Climate change will lead to bumpier flights, say scientists. Guardian. April 8, 2013.

[31] Carrington, Damian. British children 'deeply concerned' about the impact of climate change. Guardian. April 17, 2013.

[32] Carrington, Damian. Global warming has not stalled, insists world's best-known climate scientist. Guardian. May 17, 2013.

[33] Carrington, Damian. Climate change poses grave threat to security, says UK envoy. Guardian. June 30, 2013.

[34] Townsend, Mark and Harris, Paul. Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us. Observer. February 22, 2004.

[35] Carrington, Damian. Global warming pause is a mirage: the science is clear and the threat real. Guardian. September 27, 2013.

[36] Cartwright, Samuel A. Report on the Diseases and Physical Peculiarities of the Negro Race. New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, May 1851. p. 707-709.

[37] Carrington, Damian. Three million properties shown to be at risk of flash flooding in England. Guardian. December 12, 2013.

[38] Carrington, Damian. Flooding: five lessons we have learned. Observer. February 2, 2014.

[39] The Palm Island, Dubai UAE - Megastructure Development. YouTube video. Posted by GC Prive, Luxury Asset Specialists. May 6, 2013.

[40] Innovation Series. ALE.

[41] Carrington, Damian. Unchecked global warming 'will double extreme El Nino weather events.' Guardian. January 19, 2014.

[42] Carrington, Damian. Climate change will make UK weather too wet and too dry, says Met Office. Guardian. March 25, 2014.

[43] Carrington, Damian. How climate change will brew a bad-tasting, expensive cup of coffee. Guardian. March 28, 2014.

[44] Carrington, Damian. Climate change making food crops less nutritious, research finds. Guardian. May 7, 2014.

[45] McClintock, Barbara. Mutable Loci in Maize. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Yearbook 47, 1948. p. 155-169.

[46] McClintock, Barbara. Chromosome Organization and Genic Expression. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 1951. p. 13-47.

[47] McClintock, Barbara. Induction of Instability at Selected Loci in Maize. Genetics, Vol. 38. No. 6, November 1, 1953. p. 579-599.

[48] Kolata, Gina. Dr. Barbara McClintock, 90, Gene Research Pioneer, Dies. New York Times. September 4, 1992.

[49] Federov, Nina V. Barbara McClintock 1902-1992. National Academy of Sciences. 1995. p. 223.

[50] Barbara McClintock - Facts.

[51] Grandbastien, Marie-Angele. Activation of plant retrotransposons under stress conditions. Trends in Plant Science, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 1998. p. 181.

[52] Casacuberta, Elena and Gonzalez, Josefa. The impact of transposable elements in environmental adaptation. Molecular Ecology, Vol. 22, Iss. 6, March 2013. p. 1513.

[53] Lisch, Damon. How important are transposons for plant evolution? Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 14, No. 1, January 2013. p. 55.

[54] Carrington, Damian. 'Climategate' had only fleeting effect on global warming scepticism. Guardian. May 21, 2014.

[55] Delingpole, James. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? Telegraph. November 20, 2009.

[56] University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes. Telegraph. November 23, 2009.

[57] Carrington, Damian. Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert. Guardian. July 21, 2014.

[58] Carrington, Damian. Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson's climate sceptic organisation revealed. Guardian. September 2, 2014.