Look, I know most Harrumpf readers need no convincing that Net Zero is a colossal waste of money and resources, but Harrumpf is a site dedicated to exposing, and opposing bad ideas, and they don’t come much more stupid, mendacious or immoral than climate catastrophism, and the belief that we can control the climate by stopping the burning of fossil fuels. It persists because, having become a bourgeois totem, desecrating it risks incurring the wrath of the tribe, and because the many who are silently sceptical of it don’t appreciate quite how much it is damaging our societies.

Many excuse their silence on the spurious grounds that, being insufficiently scientifically educated to advance climate science, they are too ignorant to tell when someone who claims to be doing so has failed. This is mostly nonsense – science is a cruel mistress, and you don’t have to be a master tailor to tell when the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

But there’s no doubt that it is a comfort to find one’s objections to this vile death cult echoed by someone with indisputable credentials. Michael Kelly, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge University came to my attention back in 2009, when the ‘Climategate’ scandal briefly threatened to derail the gravy train that Global Warming, as it was then known, was proving to be. The scandal was swept under the carpet by the coordinated efforts of the scientific establishment, which even back then appears to have known which side its bread was buttered. Kelly was a notable exception, writing:

‘I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.‘

He went on to say:

‘My overall sympathy is with Ernest Rutherford: “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”’

if you are one of those who remain susceptible to the idea that the earth faces a threat that justifies not only impoverishing ourselves, but dictating to those in the third world who have yet to enjoy the wealth we are so wantonly destroying that they should be forbidden the only proven path out of poverty – access to cheap, fossil-fuelled energy, I urge you to watch this interview with Kelly. And do please pass it on to anyone you know who subscribes to this dangerous cult, or who might simply enjoy having their scepticism vindicated by an expert.

It’s particularly encouraging that Kelly is both a scientist and an engineer, since, as he points out, pure scientists face little prospect of censure if they are wrong, no matter how destructive their errors may be. Given his professional field, it’s no surprise that he’s particularly good at illustrating, in terms anyone can understand, the utter impracticability of building a grid based on wind and solar, but as he is also a physicist, he also covers the extensive evidence that disconfirms the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming upon which the whole boondoggle is built.

Tom Forrester-Paton,

May 2025