No not Jeremy; his brother.
For some years now Boris Johnson has channelled the crank theories of Piers Corbyn, who appeared in the 2007 film The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was shown to be ill-founded.
Rather like the myth that carrots helped RAF pilots see at night during WWII which was such a great story that even today it is repeated and believed, the idea that some changes in the Sun’s output is responsible for recent climate change is a similarly attractive myth, which keeps on being repeated.
The BBC had to apologise for Quentin Letts’ execrable hatched job on the Met Office in 2015, which also included Piers Corbyn.
The truth is that we know with a confidence unsurpassed in many fields of science what is causing global warming; it’s not the sun, it’s not volcanoes; it’s not contrails. The IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (2013) was clear that greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) resulting from human activities are the overwhelming driver of global warming (see Figure 8.15)
So you might expect Boris Johnson as a leading politician, to reference the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which gathers, analyses and synthesises the published work of thousands of scientists with relevant expertise on behalf of the nations of the world.
Instead, he has referred to the “great physicist and meteorologist Piers Corbyn” (It’s snowing, and it really feels like the start of a mini ice age, Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph, 20th January 2013). Piers Corbyn has no expertise in climate science and theories like his have been completely debunked in a paper published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society:
… the long-term changes in solar outputs, which have been postulated as drivers of climate change, have been in the direction opposite to that required to explain, or even contribute to, the observed rise in Earth’s global mean air surface temperature (GMAST) …
What is alarming is that in the face of this strong scientific evidence, some Internet sources with otherwise good reputations for accurate reporting can still give credence to ideas that are of no scientific merit. These are then readily relayed by other irresponsible parts of the media, and the public gain a fully incorrect impression of the status of the scientific debate.
So, for Boris Johnson to call himself an “empiricist” is, frankly, laughable.
He has also cozied up to neoliberal ‘think tanks’ implacably opposed to action on global warming.
I think we can safely say that hitherto he has firmly placed himself in the DENIAL bucket (in the illustration below).
He shares this perspective with other hard Brexiteers in the new Cabinet, who are itching to deregulate the UK economy, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, and see action on global warming as a constraint on unregulated markets.
In his acceptance speech on becoming Prime Minister, Boris Johnson never mentioned climate change. But since then he has reiterated Theresa May’s Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050, and
Responding to concerns expressed by Shadow Treasury Minister Anneliese Dodds that he had not focused sufficiently climate change in the initial statements outlining his priorities as Prime Minister, Johnson replied: “The House will know that we place the climate change agenda at the absolute core of what we are doing.”
He went on to say
He said: “This party believes in the private sector-generated technology which will make that target attainable and deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs. That is the approach we should follow.” …
Predicting that the UK will “no longer” be contributing to climate change by 2050, Johnson said: “We will have led the world in delivering that net-zero target. We will be the home of electric vehicles—cars and even planes—powered by British-made battery technology, which is being developed right here, right now.”
By imagining that industry alone (without any stated plans for an escalating tax on carbon), can somehow address the huge transformation required, on the timescale required, without concerted effort at every level of Government (top down and bottom up), and civil society, he remains disconnected from reality, let alone science.
Moving from DENIAL to COMPLACENCY is an advance for Boris – assuming for the moment this is not another flip-flopping of positions that he is famed for – but it is hardly the sign of the climate leadership required. We need a leadership that respects the science, and understands the policy implications and prescriptions required.
Did anyone in the house ask the Prime Minister if he accepts and will fully support the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee’s report Net Zero – The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming?
They need to, because great words need to turned into a plan of action, and every year we delay will make the transition more painful (it is already going to be painful enough, but they are not telling you that, are they?).
That will not be enough to meet the public’s concerns over the climate emergency, and increasingly, the public will be expecting leadership that has moved from COMPLACENCY to the URGENCY position.
Many see GREEN RADICALISM as now an unavoidable response to the COMPLACENCY in Whitehall.
If Boris Johnson fails to jettison his neoliberal friends and the crank science that is part of their tool-kit – who are trying (and have succeeded so far) in putting the breaks on meaningful and urgent action – the longer term political fall-out will make Brexit look like a tea party.
(c) Richard W. Erskine, essaysconcerning.com, July 2019
EssaysConcerning 
“by 2050” is politician’s shorthand for doing nothing.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. But without as action now, even 2050 is tough goal. The Climate Change Committee Net Zero report should a long list of actions required, but as with renewable.heat, these don’t happen by magic.
LikeLike