The Climate Scepticism Group is a band of bloggers who got together in June 2015 to jam on the subject of climate change and how it seems to have become a quasi-religion. Many of the members had successful solo careers before joining the band, whilst others could be found turning up at open mic sessions at venues such as Watts Up With That? and Bishop Hill. Band membership is open to anyone who thinks that their voice may be heard more readily as a member of a group that has an amp that goes up to 11, rather than as a singleton busking on the corner of Internet Street.

There is no wish to compete with supergroups such as WUWT or the GWPF on the news-gathering front. The group is just a collection of disparate voices in a joint venture. There’s no “party line” or rulebook, and certainly no 97% consensus about anything.

As with all bands, membership has changed over the years, with at least one member vowing never to re-join (artistic differences and all that). The current list of members, past, present, and possibly sleeping it off in the tour bus toilet, is as follows. (Click on the name to see the person’s Cliscep posts.)

Geoff Chambers (personal blog)
Alex Cull (personal blog and transcriptions)
Mike Dombroski (personal blog)
Richard Drake (personal blog)
Tom Fuller (personal blog)
Robin Guenier
Mark Hodgson
Jaime Jessop (personal blog)
Alan Kendall
Brad Keyes (personal blog)
Paul Matthews (personal blog)
Ben Pile (personal blog, also at spiked)
John Ridgway
Scepticus (a group name)
John Shade (personal blog)
Jonathan Thacker
Tony Thomas (also at Quadrant)
Danny Weston
Ian Woolley (personal blog)

You can also follow us on Twitter at @cliscep.

The Climate Scepticism Group was never about the money. Even today it has yet to sign a record contract. And in these post covid days, who knows where the audience for climate scepticism will go? Whatever, let the music live on!

If you’re interested in joining us, for example by contributing an article, drop us a line here. In the immortal words of Professor Phil Jones: “The internet has allowed all these people to find one another – unfortunately”

Legal Stuff:

Climate Scepticism Group’ is a form of words chosen purely for convenience by a group of contributors who use this website to present their views. Climate Scepticism Group is not a separate legal entity (whether incorporated or unincorporated), merely a name applied to a website. Each individual contributor is solely responsible for his/her own articles, and the views expressed in any article are not necessarily those of any other contributor.

While every effort will be made by contributors to moderate the site, none of the contributors accept responsibility for the comments of third parties.

[The page image is of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, founder of philosophical scepticism.]

Updated 23 Mar 2023


  1. Here is an exchange with Freeman Dyson which summarizes the current state of the Climate Wars.

    Climate and CO2- Exchange with Freeman Dyson

    E-mail 4/7/15
    Dr Norman Page

    Professor Dyson

    Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .

    The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at

    The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003.

    There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.

    The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.

    I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
    Best Regards
    Norman Page

    E-Mail 4/9/15

    Dear Norman Page,
    Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
    I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
    not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
    I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
    with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
    but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
    glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
    all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.

    Email 4/9/15
    Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
    > Best Regards Norman Page

    E-Mail 4/9/15
    Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
    for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.


  2. Great to see you guys got this blog going! I’m probably too snowed under to add anything just yet, but would certainly be interested in adding an article or two some time off in the future.


  3. TinyCO2
    Actually many hands make for a bit of a messy broth sometimes, and a lot of behind the scenes confusion. What we’re hoping for is to attain a sort of critical mass, with the emphasis on the critical. And contributions are welcome. The guest post below was received, approved and posted within a couple of hours.


  4. My sincere – albeit somewhat belated – congrats to all on this new endeavour. May you grow from strength to strength. FWIW, notwithstanding the fact that there does not seem to be any interest in including any Canadian voice(s) in your roster, I have added this blog to mine!


  5. I liked that Freeman Dyson interchange, and would encourage
    people to send the quotes to their UK Member of Parliament,
    or to send it to some people in HM Government. Even if they
    didn’t bother to properly read and digest what Dyson has written,
    your message/letter will remain a matter of public record, in the
    Parliament/Government archives, for future investigators to find.
    Some MPs and Government Ministers will have to explain later on,
    to The Law, and of course The Electorate, just why they paid little
    or no heed to those erudite warnings.

    Write to and telephone your UK MP, or better still visit their
    constituency surgery, armed with printouts of these here
    webpages, and relevant charts and diagrams, video DVDs
    made from YouTube videos, and so on. Explain to them in
    calm measured tones, why neither you, nor your friends and
    family will be supporting them, or their political party in future
    elections, or with funding any campaigns in your neighbourhood.
    ( other methods and software are available – but this is simple and free )

    This is quite a good video of Patrick Moore at The GWPF in 2015
    ‘Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?’

    Send a burned DVD of that lecture to various people.

    You must remember that whereas we are all internet
    savvy, that very many MPs and Government Officials
    still do prefer and use Ye Olde DVD Player, rather than
    “Bluetoothing” a Youtube video, from their Wi-Fi capable
    smartphone onto the TV in their office or home, or by using
    a USB Thumbdrive. DVD discs are still very cheap compared
    with other hard copy, video media. That’s why they endure.


  6. Feel free to contact me via email regarding usage of articles I’ve written. Thanks.


  7. Where do I send you things like this:

    South Australia Blackout:

    “The state gets around 40 per cent of its energy from wind turbines, however in the current extreme weather the wind is too strong so the turbines aren’t turning.

    In December, Premier Jay Weatherill hosted an energy crisis meeting after the state’s commitment to renewable energy sparked a spike in the prices of fossil-fueled energy, in some cases by as much as 10 times.

    This July, the state government asked the owner of a gas-fueled power station to turn it back on. South Australia is connected to the National Electricity Market via an interconnector with Victoria, however it is believed this connection is currently down.”



  8. Hi all,

    How are you? I’m an Australian citizen and an occasional reader of your blog.

    I don’t know if you’re aware, but last year an Australian ‘artist’ called David Finnigan held an event called ‘Kill Climate Deniers’. Finnigan’s a Fellow of the Churchill Foundation, and apparently also a professional s**tstirrer, because he managed to get govt funding to put on his ‘play’.

    Andrew Bolt took Finnigan to task, but that didn’t stop him from going ahead arnd staging an ‘event’ in Australia’s Parliament House – just in case the threat wasn’t clear enough.

    The Guardian gave it a glowing review, of course.

    This is the Left in Australia in a nutshell. Anyway it now seems Finnigan is bringing his work to London, in April.

    I thought you might like to be aware.

    Regards, Derek

    Liked by 1 person

  9. To Geoff C:

    I wanted to leave a comment on the new Wittgenstein post. BUT the ‘post comment’ box ends up underneath the first html link of the ‘Recent Articles’ list (which also happens to be Wittgenstein), so cannot be accessed. This is not true of other posts, where there is clear white space between them, so I don’t think the issue is at my end. The comment is below.


    “Not apocalyptic, but catastrophic.” “..not drowning, but waving.” Does anyone care what they write on their labels any more? Does it matter? Should we care?

    The more emotive the label, the more it will spread and influence others, increasing the likelihood that said others will also deploy similar labels. This is irrespective of the veracity or lack thereof implied by the label. Even the above mentioned Lewandowsky knows this. From ‘Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing’, by Lewandowsky et al (2012):

    ‘But we have also noted that the likelihood that people will pass on information is based strongly on the likelihood of its eliciting an emotional response in the recipient, rather than its truth value (e.g., K. Peters et al., 2009)’

    This age-old and simple mechanism fuels the certainty of imminent climate calamity. As emotive influence builds up in society over decades, scientists who are embedded within society are not magically free of the effect. As Lewandowsky also notes in the executive summary of ‘Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community’, (2015):

    “Nonetheless, being human, scientists’ operate with the same cognitive apparatus and limitations as every other person”.

    You’d think that knowing these things, he could put 2 & 2 together. But then as he also notes, worldview bias can be very powerful.

    Where unresolvable uncertainty means that the emotive components of such labels cannot easily be short-circuited out of the game, their high selective value is very hard to mitigate against using reason. Although in the big picture the resultant cultural waves have upsides as well as downsides (and with historically a net benefit, which is why we evolved in a manner that supports them), it’s hard to see any upsides in some, calamitous climate change being a case in point.

    When even Peter Wadhams is pointing out that a label is OTT, we know we’re in seriously emotive territory. While the uncertainty means that worst case scenarios cannot be ruled out, no cultural story in history has ever been true; they are just fairy tales that serve social purpose. Hence the *certainty* of near term (decades) climate calamity, is also a fairy tale, whatever is happening with the physical climate and whether ACO2 turns out to be good, bad, or indifferent.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. My new piece today

    Inconvenient Truths for a Gore Groupie

    The literary editor of The Australian’s weekend Review section is a gifted journalist, but it seems he couldn’t grasp a single key element about Al Gore and climate profiteers if a polar bear fell on him. In an effort to foil an otherwise decent newspaper’s promotion of piffle, here’s a remedial primer

    typing underwater IIWollongong University senior lecturer in journalism Dr David Blackall lamented in a recent journal article about the ignorance and bias of journalists reporting on the global warming scare. The Australian is the country’s most rigorous newspaper by far when it comes to climate reporting, its environment reporter, Graham Lloyd, doing a masterful job in covering even-handedly the controversies.

    So how and why does The Australian elsewhere make itself a laughing stock as an advocate of climate ignorance? There’s more than enough climate drivel being daily pumped out by the Fairfax press and ABC.[1] So why does The Australian allow itself to sink to the level of addled and withering former broadsheets and the national broadcaster’s taxpayer-funded alarmist collective?

    The media’s handling of climate stories is hardly a trivial issue. Britain’s leading alarmist, Lord Stern, is calling for $US90 trillion spending to cut CO2 emissions. In the Third World, the lives of countless millions of peasants will remain nasty, unhealthy and short as we deny them the life-giving benefits of cheap, coal-fired power. In Australia, as Liberal MHR Craig Kelly correctly points out, some among the elderly poor will die from the cold because they can’t afford to pay their power bills.

    Turn now to the most recent Weekend Australian and its arty insert Review section.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. You cannot make this stuff up:
    University of Queensland
    Free Online Course Starts January 9th: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
    This massive open online course (MOOC) is offered by edX, a MOOC provider founded by Harvard University and MIT. Course material is primarily delivered via short videos. This MOOC focuses on climate change communication and includes forums for online conversations with fellow learners and course moderators.
    Course Title: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
    What You’ll Learn:
    • How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
    • How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
    • How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
    • How to effectively debunk climate misinformation
    Price: Free. (Certificates are available for a fee.)
    Dates: 7 weeks starting on January 9, 2018
    Level: Introductory
    Effort: 2-4 hours a week
    For more information and to register, click here.


  12. Please provide an email address whereby I may submit my paper for consideration of Guest Posting to your site?


  13. For the Dutch audience I made a video about ‘The impossibility of Windmills’. It is translated in English and I wondered if you would be interested to give it a place on your website or place a link to it. You can view the video here: It was intended for The Netherlands, but it addresses probably the same problems with green energy there are in your country.

    Hope to hear from you, sincerely, Jan Smelik.


  14. “If you’re interested in joining us, for example by contributing an article, drop us a line here.”
    Among other things, my site: “Planet Earth Climate Topics”
    shows, from the properties of gas mixtures, that the minor gases such as CO2, CH4, etc, contribute only minor amounts to global warming. The fact that these minor gases are able to absorb IR is a mere distraction as ALL gases can absorb heat; IR is but one means of transmitting heat energy – others being conduction and convection. ALL gases are Greenhouse Gases.

    [I don’t think my thermodynamic approach has been used previously, but then my PhD is in Physical Chemistry, studying the physical properties of gases.
    P.J.CARSON ]


Comments are closed.