The evidence is clear, the science is in. We’re in deep trouble. Regular flooding is affecting us all over the country and yet there’s not enough fresh water – droughts are now common. Global crises are pushing up fertiliser and food costs. Shortages are just around the corner. Temperatures are rising, as is the cost of living.
The climate and nature crisis threatens all aspects of our life from national security to food supply. A powerful new film, People’s Emergency Briefing, has sparked conversations all over the country – and it’s coming to Rye.
Hosted by naturalist Chris Packham, People’s Emergency Briefing presents the latest scientific evidence on how bad the situation might become, and builds the call for the government to stage a televised emergency briefing. This is the essential first step towards the large scale response needed to help address these issues. It’s not a party political event – this crisis affects us all, across the board.
As well as Rye, over 20 towns and villages across Sussex will be hosting screenings of the film in churches, cinemas, youth centres, community halls and hospitals, with new dates being added every day. The interest is extraordinary.
But it’s not just a film screening. It is an opportunity for community conversations, to create shared bonds, to hear the evidence together. To share your thinking. Solutions exist – and these too are presented in the film. But we need to act, and to act much faster than the government is doing.
Come and be part of the conversation. The People’s Emergency Briefing will be showing at Rye Community Centre, Conduit Hill on the 30 April at 7.00pm (doors open: 6.30pm). Everyone welcome. Free entry, bar drinks available.
This event is organised by Rother Environment Group and Sussex Greenways on behalf of local community groups. More information: https://www.nebriefing.org/ or
info@sussexgreenways.org
Image Credits: PEB .
Here we go again. Yet more disingenuous drama from ‘climate change’ zealots. When Thatcher sold off the water companies in 1989, she literally sold the country down the river (no pun intended). The utterly inept quango ‘OFWAT’ was formed and they, along with subsequent governments have allowed the private companies to rinse out (read, rip off) the taxpayers to the tune of billions. Regular flooding is created by the inefficiency and incompetence of the Environment Agency, Natural England and Water Companies who have singularly failed (aided and abetted by ineffective governance) to provide drainage and water capture solutions. This trio have unwittingly conspired to create flooding in parallel with freshwater shortages? Now there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. During the same 30+ year period the UK population has risen by around 20%. The last major water reservoir in the UK was created in 1992, that, along with massive system leakage problems is a fundamental to water shortages.
We’re in deep trouble alright, the trouble though, it is of the stinking filth type. Pollution floods our rivers and beaches because taxpayers’ money goes towards foreign owner dividends, director bonuses and paying off huge debt. Instead of upgrading water and sewage infrastructure. Some water bills have gone up more than 70% in less than two years. The cost of living anyone?
The evidence is clear, the facts are in. Regular flooding and freshwater shortage are the result of gross incompetence, greed and poor governance. Not the result of temperatures rising.
As for Chris Packham? I would recommend a little research, try looking into his ‘turn your dogs vegan’ strategy. It’s on a par with the delusions of another certain public figure, who reckons hypnosis can enhance certain parts of the female anatomy.
Cliff, you’re 50% correct – we’re in deep trouble because privatisation has led to increased pollution in our rivers and on our beaches. But also, climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of floods and other natural weather-related events. Check out the science – you’re nearly there.
What baffles me is, when I was Just 12 years old to (quite a few years ago) the experts was bleating about the earth getting warmer,so I’m thinking why on earth didn’t they try to sort things out then,the mind boggles.
I have checked out the science. Most of the global warming narrative is based on modelling, and that which is not points out that change is cyclical, and always has been, and is more dependent on natural phenomena than human intervention. Sunspots, volcanic eruptions, el Nino etc. As for an increasing frequency of storms and flooding this is not true if you look far enough back, and the Met Office temperature figures are now based on weather stations that are mostly junk, or indeed don’t even exist.
If Nobel Prize-wiining physicists question the alarmist narrative, as they have, there must be something wrong with the narrative.
The planet is rapidly getting warmer. This fact is based on thousands of detailed measurements in the sea and in the atmosphere. These observations are data and not modelling. It was detailed observations that led Copernicus and Galileo to realise that the Earth went round the sun, not modelling. It is very hard to find a reputable scientist who denies that this warming is a direct result of human activity.
In today’s Times newspaper (12.05.26, page 18) a header reads: ‘Most grievous climate scenario thrown out by experts ‘It starts ‘The most extreme projections for global warming have been discarded as implausible ‘The source is from the ‘Scenario Model Intercomparison Project’ . It is recognised worldwide as a leading forum. A steering committee of 20 scientific experts, no less.
The tendency is to go into denial mode and carry on regardless, as before.
83% of the public want action; 78% of MPs aren’t that bothered!
This is an existential problem which is getting worse. Ignoring it won’t make Climate Change go away.
Try to see the film.
I’d be interested to know exactly what science Andrew Bamji has checked. There are two Nobel laureates who dispute the mainstream science – John Clauser, whose speciality is quantum entanglement, and Ivar Gaiever, who worked on superconductivity. Two other laureates – Manabe and Hasselmann – got the prize for their work on climate change modelling which supports the evidence of high risk. A scientific consensus does not require 100% unanimity – fact – and a small number of dissenters is normal. A 2021 analysis of 88,125 climate‑related peer‑reviewed papers found that more than 99.9% of studies agreed that humans are causing climate change. So best thing is not to base assertions of denial of anthropomorphic caused climate change on two out of 88,125. Please do your homework
Modelling requires data. Those data must be robust. They are not. Much of the narrative depends on short term data series and garbage data from the Met Office, among other sources. Garbage in, garbage out, as evidenced by the fact that the recurring dire predictions of “scientists” since the early 2000s have failed to materialise. I suggest you read Tilak Doshi and Chris Morrison who make the point, inter alia, that solar panels are produced in China using energy from fossil fuel power stations, and wind turbine blades are made from balsawood taken from tropical forests.
Weather stations in the UK are graded 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest standard. Some 80% of the UKs stations are graded 4 or 5. Some stations do not actually exist, but their “data” is averaged from surrounding stations. Put acres of concrete round a station and the ambient temperature will go up.
The biggest rise in recent global temperatures was caused by the underwater eruption of a volcano near Tahiti, which threw up vast quantities of heat absorbing water vapour. And if you look at satellite images you will find that the increasing CO2 levels have caused greening in sub-Saharan Africa which is hardly surprising. Coral bleaching, trumpeted as a warning sign, has reversed. Long term analysis of storm and flood patterns shows no significant change.
Maybe some climate change is human induced, but not a lot, and as the UK produces only 0.2% of global CO2 emissions, the destruction of our industries while China and India continue to power theirs by fossil fuels seems a high price to pay, especially when the settled science is highly questionable.
Hi. I’m a scientist who specialises in assessing uncertainty in climate datasets. And a friend has asked me to engage with this post. It’s hard because of the large number of different topics in your message. I also am not convinced you are interested in detailed answers. But, I always try to because I think it’s important to engage. I see you worked in medicine and I’m sure you had to make decisions based on limited knowledge at times and if we were one to one, I’d ask about that.
Let’s start where we absolutely agree. All models are approximations. With a complex system like the Earth processes even our very best models have to rely on assumptions and approximations. Furthermore, by definition in a changing climate you are not just interpolating but, by definition extrapolating. That means it is extremely important to distinguish what we can know and what we cannot know.
Where you’re wrong is in implying that if we don’t know everything we must know nothing. That models have to have perfect or no predictive power. My research is to show where we are in that enormous range.
The big picture is very well known. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. As extra CO2 is added to the atmosphere it does three main things – in some places it increases plant growth, but only where ecosystems are healthy. The oceans are the main location for that. Second about a quarter is literally absorbed by the ocean. That makes the ocean more acidic (contributing to those coral reef bleaching when there is also raised temperatures). Then about another quarter stays in the atmosphere. We know that because we can measure it – and when we measure it we see the seasonal pattern from variations in tree uptake. Those measurements are very simple measurements with low uncertainty.
So what happens with the CO2 in the atmosphere? It absorbs, then re-emits infrared radiation (atmosphere is opaque) but basically the point it stops absorbing – the point there are no more CO2 molecule neighbours and it can radiate out to space, moves up to higher altitudes. Higher altitudes are cooler. So less energy escapes. That keeps heat in the system but where does it go?
About 91% goes into the oceans and heats the water. Hotter water expands and we can measure the sea level rise due to that expansion. My work looks at satellite radar measurements of that, but there are also tide gauges etc. now, there need to be corrections – tide gauges have to be corrected for land movements and satellites have to be corrected for the atmosphere slowing the radar. But these corrections are possible and, most importantly you can quantify the uncertainty (that’s my job). I could go into more but not now.
Ok, so 90% of heat is absorbed by ocean. A further 5% is absorbed by the land – rocks and sand getting hotter. That’s the hardest bit to measure. Then another 4% is absorbed by ice. When the ice melts we can measure that twice – both by seeing reductions in the glaciers and icecaps (satellite radar, direct observations) and by how much the mass of the ocean increases (gravimetric satellites). The fact that we can explain sea level rise as the sum of that increases mass and the thermal expansion really helps us get confidence. We are always looking at closing those loops – getting to the same answer from different directions. And then when we have tiny differences we explore further to see what we’ve missed. That’s not a failure that’s science working.
The final 1% of extra heat goes into the lower atmosphere (remember this all starts because the upper atmosphere cools). That’s also hard to measure. You’re right – if a weather station is near growing urbanisation it will be telling the local, rather than global, story. So we need to separate that. That’s why weather stations are graded. Lower grade weather stations can be really useful for operations at airports or localised weather forecasting. They are NOT used for climate studies. And yes, very, very few UK weather stations are useful for climate studies. But that’s not a sign that they are bad. It’s a sign that we are very careful what data we use to validate the models.
There’s more to say – but I’ll take a break here.
I have read Doshi and Morrison. Given Doshi’s career in oil and gas his views are hardly surprising. He is correct on one thing at least – the rampant use of Ecuadorean forest balsa for Chinese wind turbines. Like cardboard and palm oil, another commodity responsible for deforestation – which I assume you concur leads to a loss of carbon sinks, not to mention soil stability. Fortunately turbine manufacturers are now turning to composites. And China is now the largest user of renewables in the world, surpassing the total rest-of-world installation capacity by some margin. The claim that coral bleaching is being reversed is just plain wrong. And greening of parts of the Sahara is more complex than just CO2 – which does of course encourage plant growth (why we need forests!) but it also changing rain patterns. Another feature of climate change. And as for vocanoes ‘near Tahiti’ – broadly there has been seismic activity in the south Pacific region as Dr Bamji says, but not ‘near’ Tahiti. And those eruptions were determined as having had a minimal impact on climate change compared with human activity. Yes volcanos are a threat but they are not caused by us, so we need to reduce our impact in order that things like volcanos do not contribute to the problem in any meaningful way.
Here is “A really simple guide to Climate change” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9w15nggj58o
The graph showing recorded levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is just “Data”. No need for modelling to see that something very unusual is happening to our planet.
99% of scientists agree on the likely consequences.
This is an emergency.
The National Emergency Briefing hosted inputs on Health and Climate Change issues from Professor Hugh Montgomery, an Intensive Care doctor.
His work includes “Real Zero”, which outlines 7 Acts to benefit all – as individuals, and our planet:
1. Move your money – Away from banks that finance the fossil fuel industry
2. Move your energy – To a 100% renewable source – Electrify!
3. More plant-based food- Seasonal and local, where possible
4. More green travel – Walking and cycling, more trains, fewer planes
5. Monitor your carbon footprint – And cut where you can
6. Mobilise Use your vote – To demand action from your representatives
7. Motivate seven other people – To perform their 7 Acts!
More detail here: https://www.realzero.earth/7-acts-1
The site also helps us to respectfully support those who have not yet understood the climate change issues (Earth Day site), and what we can do from here.
This draws from a rich set of robust, evidence-based resources for those who wish to learn more on any of the points raised:
https://www.earthday.org/6-arguments-to-refute-your-climate-denying-relatives/
Christopher Strangeways suggest that as only two scientists are critical of the settled science climate change narrative I would remind him that only two scientists were critical of the belief that the sun went round the earth – Galileo and Copernicus. I think our positions are irreconcilable and we will have to watch, wait and see, but there is an awful lot of bad science about and we should understand that many decisions have unintended consequences.
I can’t understand why Dr Bamji has set himself up as the token ostrich with his head in the sand!
Climate change and disastrous extreme weather events are here now, such as in Germany and Spain where we almost accept as normal, scenes of cars floating through towns, crashing into each other.
The best thing about the film is that there is still time, with political action and personal changes, such as eating less meat and traveling more responsibly.
Why does Dr Banji think French wine producers have bought up large swathes of Kent and Sussex? It’s because the Champagne region is already suffering temperatures too high for the grapes.
In 1964 Kenneth Mellanby, the director of the ecological research station in Cambridgeshire where I worked, called the staff together and gave a talk on the likelihood of climatic warming due to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It was predicted long ago, the mechanism is known, it is happening.
People can argue for or against climate change, but all the time we buy off China, the situation will only get worse, Time we upped our manufacturing in this country, and stop the reliance of other countries, who care little about the seriousness of climate change, until we do that sadly nothing will change, and arguing true or false claims will not make an iota of difference.
There is no doubt that CO2 levels are rising. The question is why. And how far. And whether its contribution to warming is significant. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has now admitted that its prophesies are “implausible”. See https://dailysceptic.org/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/. There have been cyclical changes in the climate for centuries, even millennia. How much is attributable to human intervention is simply unknown. Some, certainly. The early desertification of the Sahara was probably down to goats; the loss of tropical forests to pasture is worrying.
As someone with a critical eye and experienced in research I am happy to accept research that is properly conducted, but change my mind if new facts emerge. In the late 1960s there was a movement called “Doctors and Overpopulation “ for which, as a medical student, I convened meetings. It set out the same catastrophe predictions as we see today. They never happened. Being sceptical is scientific. And I am far from a token.
As an aside, the weather patterns in the East have changed markedly since water diversion caused the Aral Sea to dry out. Why does nobody know much about that? Or try and assess its global effect?
Thank you Andrew for looking into the facts about Climate change..and putting forward other cogent arguments for differing reasons that can contribute to the changing patterns we experience and other large problems due to other reasons than usually cry less fossil fuel and eating less meat ….
Thank you for pointing out that science isn’t a fixed answer but changes as further research is carried out.
This doesn’t mean we don’t need to use the worlds’ own country’s resources wisely.
Where is your evidence that coral bleaching is being reversed? I spent
my professional life writing about scuba diving, specifically diving on coral reefs, and I’m co-author of The Greenpeace Book of Coral Reefs. From my experience on over a thousand dives in more than 20 tropical countries coral bleaching is getting worse, not better. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) agrees: “The world’s warm water coral reefs are bleaching en masse for the fourth time in 25 years. Scientists believe surging ocean temperatures, driven by climate change, are responsible for the latest bleaching event, which has spanned from Panama to Australia – and is getting worse. These undersea cities, which support 25 per cent of marine life, could virtually disappear by the end of this century.”
Reversing coral bleaching, either by breeding heat-resistant corals, or transplanting from a coral nursery back onto the reef, is incredibly expensive and difficult and will never be deployed at the scale required.