By Paul Homewood

Prof Mark Maslin has written this opinion piece in The Conversation, promoting his new book, “How to Save Our Planet – The Facts”:

The climate crisis is no longer a looming threat – people are now living with the consequences of centuries of greenhouse gas emissions. But there is still everything to fight for. How the world chooses to respond in the coming years will have massive repercussions for generations yet to be born.

In my book How to Save Our Planet, I imagine two different visions of the future. One in which we do very little to address climate change, and one in which we do everything possible.

This is what the science suggests those very different realities could look like.

Year 2100: the nightmare scenario

The 21st century draws to a close without action having been taken to prevent climate change. Global temperatures have risen by over 4°C. In many countries, summer temperatures persistently stay above 40°C. Heatwaves with temperatures as high as 50°C have become common in tropical countries.

Every summer, wildfires rage across every continent except Antarctica, creating plumes of acrid smoke that make breathing outdoors unbearable, causing an annual health crisis.

Ocean temperatures have risen dramatically. After repeated bleaching events, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has been officially declared dead.

Full story here.

The article is not worth reading, as it is full of the usual alarmist nonsense. The Conversation long ago gave up any pretence to impartiality on climate affairs, and refuses to publish any alternate views.

But what is interesting is Maslin’s own background. According to his bio, he is Professor of Earth System Science at University College London. We have come across him here a couple of times; for instance, his study which ludicrously claimed that European colonisation of the America’s caused the Little Ice Age (yes, that’s right, the Little Ice Age that climate scientists now claim never actually existed!). Apparently the wholesale slaughter of the natives (really?), led to the abandonment of agricultural land, which was then taken over by forests, thus reducing CO2 levels.

For some reason, he was unable to explain why the Little Ice Age began long before the events he describes.

His resume however suggests he has spent most of the last few years as an environmental campaigner, rather than a scientist.

His disclosure statement for The Conversation includes a lengthy list of organisations that he has received grant funding from over the years:

And his LinkedIn page reveals that he has been awarded grants totalling an incredible £43 million:

Much of that will, of course, have gone to his university and colleagues. Nevertheless it shows how the extent to which climate science has been corrupted by money.


May 10, 2021 at