Boris Johnson's climate change "scepticism" is an embarrassment to London's scientists

The Mayor's suggestion that we are heading for a "mini Ice Age"shows that he does not understand the basic science behind global warming.

Boris Johnson has become a real embarrassment to London's scientific community after his latest outburst of climate change ‘scepticism’, which exposes not just a glaring weakness in his own knowledge but also within his team of advisers.

On Monday, Johnson used his Telegraph column to muse on the global climatic implications of a few days of wintry weather in the UK in January. He concluded that it might be time for policy-makers to consider whether the earth is heading for a "mini Ice Age".

This is complete rubbish, of course, and shows not only that Johnson does not understand the basic science behind global warming but also that he cannot distinguish between anecdote and evidence, or between weather and climate.

Claiming to be "an empiricist", Johnson suggested that this is "the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow" and that "I don’t remember winters like this". Unfortunately, his commitment to observational analysis apparently does not extend to consulting the Met Office’s records, which would have shown him that although the average temperatures in the UK during winters 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 were below average, last winter was actually warmer than average, as were most winters since 2000.

Furthermore, he would have discovered that the UK’s climate bears the unmistakeable footprint of global warming, with the seven warmest years on record all occurring since 2000. So why does the Mayor claim we are experiencing global cooling?

Well, it seems that the only person Johnson consults on this issue is his friend Piers Corbyn, who rejects the overwhelming evidence that rising atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases is driving the unambiguous rise in global average temperatures, and instead holds the sun directly responsible for trends in the Earth’s climate.

The trouble with Dr Corbyn’s theory, which he has not published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, is that it is not supported by evidence. He does not even believe that the earth’s climate is controlled by the amount of energy radiated from the sun, but instead blames its magnetic activity, which increases and decreases cyclically about every 11 years and so clearly cannot be the main driver of global warming.

Johnson’s description of Dr Corbyn’s theory is an almost verbatim reproduction from one of his earlier columns last July (clearly the £250,000 he is allegedly paid each year is not high enough to guarantee original content for its readers), and is punctuated with references to JMW Turner, Shakespeare and the Aztecs, but largely devoid of scientific insight.

This latest gaffe follows his decision last year to invite Matt Ridley, a prominent climate change ‘sceptic’ and former chairman of Northern Rock, to speak at City Hall about how environmental risks are overblown, as part of the cultural celebration that accompanied the Olympics.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by all this given the complete lack of scientific education that Johnson has received. However, the Mayor has to take scientific evidence and expert knowledge into account when making many important decisions, not the least of which is how to adapt the capital’s transport system and infrastructure to withstand the impacts of global warming. He should not be relying on the fanciful theories of friends when it comes to issues that affect the lives and livelihoods of Londoners.

Johnson should make better use of the fact that the capital is home to many world class universities and scientific societies where he could consult genuine experts, most of whom now cringe every time he holds forth about climate change. But it is also time that the Mayor of London followed the example of central government departments by adding a professional and credible chief scientific adviser to his team.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson gestures as he addresses students at The Indian School of Business (ISB) campus in Hyderabad on November 28, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Is Francois Fillon Marine Le Pen's dream opponent?

The former French prime minister's unexpected surge puts him in the box seat for the Republican nomination - and the French presidency. 

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy's comeback bid ended in ignominy yesterday after a chastening third-place finish in the Republican primary, ending his hopes of being the centre-right candidate for the French presidency. That we expected from the polls - but what we didn't expect was the surge for Francois Fillon, former prime minister, beating Alain Juppé, anotherformer French prime minister into first place.

Fillon is as close to French politics gets to a Thatcherite ultra - read this very good Anne-Sylvaine Chassany interview with him to get a measure of who he is - which has some commentators nervous that if, he, not the more centrist Juppé, faces Marine Le Pen in the second round, he will lose, as leftwingers stay at home. 

(For those of you who aren't au fait with the French electoral system: you have two rounds. If no candidate secures more than half of the vote in the first round, the top two go through to a second round, held in this case next Sunday. Le Pen is widely expected to lead in the first round and then lose in the second. It is highly likely that it will be the Republican candidate that makes it into the second round with her.)

Are they right? Well, no-one has gone broke betting on the far right in recent years (which is more than can be said for betting on sterling) but there is plenty of reason not to get out the bunting for Le Pen just yet. 

Fillon's chances are good - that the beaten Sarkozy has endorsed him, not Juppé, is a measure of the challenge that Juppé faces - but 15 per cent of voters in the primary yesterday came from the left and there may be more in the second round. Juppé's chances aren't quite gone yet, though Fillon looks the favourite by some distance.

And while I am reluctant to generalize from the thin anecdotal pool of a handful of friends in the French socialist party, my sense is that for all there is a political gap between Juppé and Fillion, the two men are both hated on the left.  Unlike Sarkozy, however, neither is loathed, meaning that the so-called "Republican front" - the historical alliance of non-extremist parties against the parties of the fringe -  is as likely to hold for Fillon as for Juppé.

But if it is Fillon, it will have big consequences. Not for Brexit, where both men - as with most of the French establishment - are unsympathetic to Britain. (And as I've written before, both will be preoccupied with containing Le Pen, which means giving Britain as raw a deal as possible.) But Fillon, crucially, is pro-Putin, and believes that a deal must be done with Russia and Bashar-Al-Assad to combat the soi-disant Islamic State, which will, after Trump's victory, further orient the powers of the West in Putin's direction.

One heck of an intray for the new leader of the free world aka Angela Merkel.

This originally appeared in today’s Morning Call, your daily guide to everything that’s moving in politics, in Westminster and beyond, to which you can subscribe here

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.