Let us, if you will, project our imaginations forward 27 years to 2050. It may seem a long way off, but it isn’t. Let’s also imagine that a succession of British Governments have pulled off the remarkable achievement of Net Zero. Britain now has Net Zero carbon emissions, a challenge predicated on the ceaseless predictions of climate apocalypse, averting the prospect of irreversible climate change and even the imminent death of the planet.
A succession of Governments with laws, penalties, quotas, compulsory scrappage and subsidies have achieved the unimaginable and at stratospheric cost to every citizen in Britain. Outside houses (or at least most of them) a whirring heat pump trundles away, pumping its mildly warm water around the house for most of the year, and with variable effectiveness depending on the house concerned. Within, the rooms are all but hermetically sealed to keep the vapid heat the pumps produce inside.
For those who can afford them, an electric car sits outside too, connected to the house’s electricity supply by an umbilical cord. For others, cables are draped across the pavements and every car park across the land is filled with battalions of chargers and more cables. After decades of dedication to the cause every sidewalk across the land has been torn up and the necessary mains cables installed. But no matter – the work is done, and the nation can bask now in its new identity as the leading clean-charging nation on Earth.
On the roofs of houses everywhere are untold numbers of solar panels, at least for those homes with the roof space to accommodate them, busily charging a stack of batteries resembling an extravagant 1970s HiFi system – at least on the days that Britain’s wan and unreliable sun deigns to charge them.
Across the land, field after field has been given over to solar panels and wind turbines.
Vast quantities of private and public money have been poured into this scheme and all for the laudable purpose of Saving the Planet. The righteous glow is palpable. Britain has led the world into the Promised Land.
Let’s have no cynicism here please. Let’s believe that this has all been pulled off with startling success, despite the cost. The naysayers have been crushed, forced to back down and accept that the Cult of Net Zero has taken the country to the gateway to a clean Utopia.
And there have been benefits – of a sort. For the right type of house, the feeble warmth of a heat pump may work very well though it will be exceeded by the righteous glow of the owners who exult in the triumphant conversion of their home. Electric cars are, so I am told, a delightful ride. Gone are smelly exhausts and oil changes, along with clatter of diesel engines and their particulants.
Everyone has done The Right Thing. And of course. it’s better to have a cleaner and non-polluting way of life, especially if one can quietly brush over where and how the necessary equipment was manufactured and the necessary power was generated.
But perhaps by 2050 the realisation will begin to dawn. There will not have been the slightest detectable impact on the climate. Let’s not pretend to ourselves: climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the day since weather began. It changes across time and place. It has always done and it always will.
But after spending all that money and throwing all that labour into Net Zero, the weather extremes, whatever they are and whatever they are caused by, will continue. The prospect of Armageddon will remain unabated, even if Armageddon itself turns out to be curiously elusive. Since Britain produces 1% of the world’s emissions, even if stopping global emissions was capable of arresting or affecting climate change there will be no discernible change from Britain’s efforts.
There will be no impact on the climate for the lifetimes of those who have poured their lives and money into Net Zero. There will be no impact on the lives of their children, their children’s children, or for many generations after that. There will be no suspension of extreme weather events because extreme weather events are a fact of life and always have been. How many fewer extreme weather events would need to be counted for Net Zero to be deemed a success?
Of all the predictions made about Net Zero that is surely a cast-iron guarantee. If it was human activity that brought us to this edge of the cliff, then it cannot be reversed in a few short years. But no doubt when the world turns out not to have ended (just as it did not end when all those self-flagellating movements predicting the end of the world in the past claimed it would) there will be euphoric claims that Britain has staved off the end of the human race.
With so many of the world’s countries carrying on blithely with their coal-fired power stations then little Britain in 2050 may feel good about itself but that’s about it. David Blackmon in the Telegraph questions whether there will be any net energy transition at all.
The actual up-front benefits to those who have paid out for feeling good (which if the Government has its way are every one of us) are going to be very limited indeed. Life will perhaps be cleaner but the physical paraphernalia of Net Zero will be intrusive and ubiquitous from the fields of solar panels and the thump-thump -thump of the wind turbines to the dangling charging cables everywhere.
By then the huge environmental costs of manufacturing and installing all these things will be coming in from scraping lithium off the seabed to the loss of farmland, along also with the sobering realisation that recycling old batteries, solar panel arrays and wind turbines is a far from simple prospect.
The costs of replacing all the Net Zero infrastructure being installed now will be coming home to roost. There’s a real risk that in 25-30 years’ time Britain will be saddled with vast quantities of obsolete and failing hardware.
To be fair, we’d have to replace all the existing cars and boilers anyway by then. The real question is how to generate the additional necessary electrical power by doing away with oil and gas as a source of electricity generation. One estimate (see below) puts the U.S. grid needing to be enlarged by 60%. That includes everything right down to the circuit breakers in domestic buildings, let alone coping with the vagaries and unreliability of renewable energy.
I’m fascinated by wondering what will happen in 2050. For Net Zero policies to work, if they are even capable of working, they will have to be ubiquitous. For them to be ubiquitous means enforcement everywhere regardless of their efficiency or reliability, and if necessary, at the point of a gun. What will we do with the countries that place national energy interests their chief priority and won’t play ball? Go to war with them?
Of course, I’ve ducked past the real point, which is that not only are millions of people going to discover in 2050 that their sacrifices and money have not achieved any change in the clime, but also that in fact Net Zero cannot be reached as well as maintaining energy production at today’s levels, let alone any increases in demand.
And that is the can being knocked down the road and the lie being peddled by almost every politician in business in Britain and beyond who claims to be pursuing Net Zero. “The idea that Net Zero can be achieved on the current timelines by any means short of a command economy combined with a drastic decline in standards of living – and several unlikely technological miracles – is a blatant falsehood,” says Professor Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Engineering at Cambridge, who points out that the implications are obvious.
None of this means we can’t get to a hyperclean new way of life, and I’m all for that. It’s the timescale that’s the problem. And it’s clear to me that Michael Kelly has an immeasurably greater understanding of the practicalities of Net Zero by 2050, both in the U.K. and the U.S., than almost anyone pushing it.
We live in a democracy which means it is the prerogative of the citizens of the United Kingdom to vote for this, if that’s what they want. But I think it’s only fair to stick that in the manifestos and for it to be explained what the deal really is. Otherwise, there is going to be a rude awakening by 2050 and you can be sure that those who led us down this path will have vanished and left others to pick up the pieces.
Stop Press: Read Professor Michael Kelly’s excellent piece in the Telegraph: “People need to know the realities of Net Zero.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I was a great supporter of his mother but I want this man out and an end to the Monarchy. At least a President only serves 5 years.
It is always extreme hardship for others, never for them. If he freaks out when his pen fails to work, then I fear for the Palace staff when the central heating and air conditioning fail because there is no energy to provide them!
“At least a President only serves 5 years” – unless, of course, he changes the rules, which has happened time and again.
Charles has just changed the rules as well and what can we do about it.
We don’t need a king or a president. But that’s just my opinion.
In any case one thing you won’t ever catch me doing is referring to Charles as “King Charles”. The idea that we have a king ruling over us is simply ridiculous and in the case of this particular one who is a total nob, it’s comical.
You could refer to him as Mad ‘Green’ King Charles 111 if that is acceptable?
I hate Charles – another halfwit pampered billionaire hypocrite know nothing. His mother was great (until Rona). There never was a pandemic. There is no issue with ‘climate’, a complex convection system entirely out of our control.
King Boilingtard I needs to be removed. If he persists and the rest of the royals support this moron we should bring down the monarchy and using the principles of Net Zero Communism – redistribute their billions in wealth to say working class whites.
Hear hear I would vote for you as our new President !
Seconded
common sense Ferd for potuk!
(president of the United Kingdom)
I would support getting rid of the monarchy.
I would vigorously oppose stealing their wealth. I don’t believe in jconfiscating people’s property just because we don’t like them.
Removing any power or authority they may have over me is all I want.
She also broke her Coronation Oath in 1972 when she signed the European Communities Act.
Agreed this useless greedy immoral dimwit should be forced to abdicate, he has clearly politicised the monarchy which was the only tangible benefit of the expensive scam. If we had a conservative pm who didn’t believe in climate change king dimwit be off in 1 minute flat.
We have too readily fallen for the storyline that Brenda was a wonderful Queen but what was she really up to in the background?
I no longer buy the stories we are meant to believe. Chuckles grew up with this lot and yes he could have gone rogue but I tend to the view that he is simply vocalising a family view. Ging has decidedly gone rogue but he has never contradicted his step-dad on the eco nuttery.
The Windsors have to go. The whole bloody lot of them. And we will have their dollars as reparations for all the damage they have done to this country.
I know for a fact Phil and Anne are fully aware that the climate thing is a scam. When Phil died sense and neutrality on this issue went out of the window. I’m not saying Phil was a saint but he understood how the monarchy needed to be. Unfortunately Chuck takes after his dimwit mother with a nasty anti human streak added in.
The Duke wanted to be reincarnated as a virus to wipe out humanity, the old malthusian that he was.
I agree, though not a royalist, I had massive respect for the Queen who earned every minute of her reign with fortitude, strength, poise and dignity,
Totally unlike this fu#£@g cock that’s in now! End the monarchy!
How many laws did she give Royal Accent to….The EEC was a big one, tantamount to treason.
It was just the common market at the time, but just got more and more controlling
Glad you raised that one. Many people forget she broke her Coronation Oath without so much as a blink. From that day on, it demonstrated to me that the establishment was rotten and treasonous to its very core.
I too was a Royalist albeit a lukewarm one until his mother said if we didn’t take the jab we were disloyal. That did it for me.
But when you listen to what the Queen said about Charles and also Philip, she clearly supported their views on the climate.
She was also at COP a few years ago….People forget that.
Dim, depressing, deluded and despìcable, ‘Brian’ has ever been thus. In the old days, when Private Eye was readable (30-40 years ago) they lampooned Brian mercilessly and deservedly for his adherence to the gospel according to Sir Laurens van der Post, who was an early day, daft as a ship’s cat, chancer, environmentalist, and fantasist. That is the measure of our ‘king’. I opine as one who swore allegiance to Brian’s mum in 1969 and served 17 years.
Who is ‘Hardliner’ and how does he/she have access to my post such that he/she can amend my post without my approval?
Hardliner is the editor of DS! so can pretty much do as he/she/her/they/them wishes!
)
(Did I include all the pronouns!, don’t want to get arrested for hurting someone’s feelings
‘Hardliner’ is one of the Mods- moderators.
In that case Hux, he/she/it is oversensitive. I used the ‘p’ word reserved for an adult who knobs a fourteen year old girl.
Last year he was told he couldn’t do this, and reluctantly he didn’t. I think it’s time he went. Anyway, he’s a bit thick. In Russia when the communists took over didn’t they execute his type?
A wee bit extreme even for my tastes, but hopefully we have an uninhabited island where he could be left to squeeze his own toothpaste and keep the campfire burning
Maybe a bit extreme, but I think they are playing with fire, and there could be unintended consequences. I think a more likely scenario unfortuantely is that we will suffer. But it is very hard to predict.
It would ironically be the chance for Harry to form a rival non woke Court and replace C & W.
No thankyou.
The gathering of the Carbonocracy.
Their sole aim is to transfer your money, power and liberty to themselves.
You merely supply the cheap labour, the pygmies in the machine whose life is governed by their processes.
We fight by direct democracy. Don’t give your money or vote to those who hate you. Resist. Oppose. Don’t comply.
There are far more of us than them and they fear us.
I try my best not to “comply”. I refuse a smart meter and heat pump. I will never drive an electric car etc etc.(Until I am finally coerced into it all that is)—-But each of us who maybe read books and investigate the climate scam for ourselves and then pass comment on websites like this are fighting against a huge Climate Industrial Complex, who have mass media peddling their pseudo science, and massive organisations like the UN with their IPCC full of “all the worlds scientists”.—–Going against the group think herd mentality will probably get you into a bit of bother with your friends and family who all by now have a smart meter because they were told it will save them money when infact it is there to ration energy use. There may be “far more of us” in places like the Daily Sceptic, but the public at large are much more easily manipulated and when they are told that all scientists agree, they are very reluctant to challenge anything they think has to do with science. ——-But OfCourse all scientists do not agree at all and even if they did this is not how science works. Science is not decided by a show of hands.————-But Politics is.
I agree with you; I am not “falling into line” with a smart meter, EV or all the rest of the “green” bollocks, but it’s very hard to convince other people that they’re being conned.
The brainwashing has been very effective and its been going on for far longer than the Covid propaganda, so it will be almost impossible to reverse. The only thing that may wake some up is when they see their standard of living really being demolished – and we’re not quite at that stage yet.
“Not quite at that stage”? ——Maybe for you and I who might still be able to afford our excruciatingly expensive energy bills to pay for the “green crap”. But the pretend to save the planet policies are biting higher and higher up the economic trouser leg. It won’t be too long at this rate when those sitting comfortably off at the moment start to feel the need to put on two extra jumpers like those who have already been forced into fuel poverty have already experienced.
We’re in agreement. It’s only when the relatively comfortably off (of which I’m one) who tend to support the green bollocks (I don’t) start to feel the pain that they will wake up.
I recently had a discussion with my sister, a LooneyDem who is less comfortably off than me and who is fully on board with the climate bollocks: I told her that nothing we did to reduce our 1% of global emissions would have any impact on the climate, but they will bankrupt the country in the process. Her response was to basically agree but said “we’ve got to start somewhere.”
She was also, for the first time, at great pains to tell me why her house wouldn’t be suitable for a heat pump. Everyone else should get one, but she should be exempted
When the likes of her, by no means poor but not very well off, start to really feel the pain, they will change their minds.
I know a few people like your sister. It is difficult not to want to bludgeon them with some basic facts because that seems like you are being a bully. I get it. —–I had a conversation once with two zoologists who started to talk about the environment and climate change and “we have to stop all of the pollution”.—-So I asked them “What pollution are you referring to”?——-The husband took a moment and then said “CO2”. ———So I asked him “How much CO2 is in the atmosphere”? At this point he started to go on the defence. “Well I don’t know the exact amount” he blurted. So I said “Well how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from humans”? Once again neither of them knew. But they insisted that they were both scientists and knew what they were talking about. —–The thing is I would not have the audacity to want to enter into discussions about welding if I didn’t know what a welding rod was, but here were two reasonably intelligent people prepared to pontificate about climate change but with not even a basic understanding of the issue. They, like your sister have listened to what the media have had to say and blindly accepted that version of reality simply because it appears plausible. But I remember the words of Mark Twain “It’s better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you may be a fool, than open it and remove all doubt”
I told her that nothing we did to reduce our 1% of global emissions would have any impact on the climate, but they will bankrupt the country in the process. Her response was to basically agree but said “we’ve got to start somewhere.”
As already refuted last time: Assuming we are really in an urgent climate crisis caused by human-induced CO₂ emissions, we absolutely cannot afford to put years worth of effort and huge sums of money into hobbyhorse projects which won’t have any meaningful impact on said emissions. If the UK is supposed to decarbonize within the next 27 years as a start, this means we’re absolutely not in such a crisis and no such crisis is looming, either.
Aside: Somewhat recently, posters have gone up in the closest Waitrose urging people to avoid buying more food than what theyre actually eating, claiming this will make a huge impact on climate change. As that’s obviously bollocks, it’s plainly obvious that someone is trying to utilize the well-known climate change trope in order to gain some traction for a preexisting political agenda that’s really unrelated to it (the other explanation would be that the point of this poster is just to have climate change on a place at a wall were all customers of this Waitrose are guaranteed to see it frequently).
Yep——Soon the brainwashed dreamers will be following you around the supermarket telling you not to buy beef. Already I have heard stories of activists tipping over trolleys. They have been out slashing the tyres of SUV’s. ——-When you believe things that are not true you are likely to do irrational things. When you think the world is going to end you don’t worry what you do to other people because your mission is way more important than anyone’s “freedom”
The middle classes are the most stupid people was a quote from someone lately, maybe Clarkson.
It one of them has been retributed for their bollocks ! Not one ! Although I did see Billy Boy get egged with something a while back but that’s it
An amusing anecdote. I went to a local – and massive – annual fair recently where a Town Cryer did his thing, much to the gathered crowd’s amusement and engagement. He ended with a rousing hip hooray to the town itself (loud and happy response), then one to the King. The initial silence was deafening, subsequently broken by about 3 weak cheers and a lot of muttering as the crowd rapidly dispersed. Says it all.
Love it
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
The Club of Rome – Limits to Growth, 1972
Simply put, it’s a scam
Exactly.
Presumably, from that day on billionaires were created at a far greater rate than ever before.
At University his bodyguard took the same exams and got a better degree. Charles is terminally dumb.
The Kings father (Phillip) thought that half a billion people on earth would be plenty. He also said he wished he could come back in a future life as a killer virus to wipe the rest of us out.—– But ofcourse none of this anti human ranting ever rubbed of on Charles did it? ——-OfCourse it did. ——-Yesterday on GB News the resident climate alarmist, Jim Dale, quoted the King as “evidence” that we have a dangerously changing climate. But isn’t it funny that you can have any occupation whatsoever and talk of a climate emergency and none of these eco fundamentalists will question a word of what you say, but if you question any of the climate dogma you will be told straight “YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST”————–But wait a second the King isn’t a scientist either is he? —-No he isn’t. So why is anybody listening to him if it is only scientists that know what is true? ——The answer is so simple. ——–It isn’t about science and never was. These conferences are not climate conferences. They are economic ones. They are about the world’s wealth and resources and how they are to be divided up. There is nothing more abhorrent to the wealthy elites including the good King than poor people in poor countries having the same standard of living as those in the wealthy west, and so we bribe poor people with some aid money for turbines, and we pretend we are helping them adapt to dangerous climatic changes (for which no evidence exists). ———–An Eco Socialist SCAM
Unfortunately King Charles is, via Van Der Post, a disciple of Jung.
‘Jung was deeply connected with his native Swiss soil that was reflected in the ecological aspects of his conceptual system and his interest in alchemy as his main symbol system. Ecology begins with our relationship with “the little people” in our dreams and dreams can be used to help us connect deeply to the land using Hillman’s concept of Aphrodite as the Soul of the World. In 1940 Jung foretold a paradigm shift that he labeled a “new age” and “Aquarian Age”. The new paradigm will be based on ecological concepts and reflected in the economic system being developed by the sustainable economists. We must think in these terms as a species if there is any hope of averting a planetary nightmare.’
Jung & the Environment, Merritt, Dennis 2021
Unfortunately Jung, we now know, was several items short of the full English……
‘But if you read Jung, it’s pretty clear what his beliefs were. He was saying that gods ruled the collective unconscious. I’m simply saying that Jung was using, or rather hiding behind, psychological jargon to reintroduce the Hellenistic cosmos.’
Professor Richard Noll
Conspiracy theorists, here’s one for you. What tie was the King wearing yesterday?
The full tonto……
Greek I do believe.
Charles appears to have inherited all the character flaws of the first King with that name, which led directly to civil war and the (temporary) abolition of the monarchy.
Our late Queen was the perfect Constitutional Monarch. The only thing she really got wrong was landing us with such a weak, hypocritical heir who either doesn’t understand his Constitutional position or doesn’t give a 4X about it.
I no longer support the Monarchy. If Charles (and William) think its their role to interfere in politics and actively work to destroy the wealth and living standards of “their subjects” then as far as I’m concerned, they have forfeited the right to reign.
I was pondering whether there is a hereditary connection with George III – it could explain a lot.
Well Porphyria is a hereditary disease, so it’s certainly possible. But he doesn’t exhibit the same symptoms as George III. I certainly think he’s inherited the arrogance and weaknesses of Great Uncle Edward who was made to abdicate, and it’s a great shame that he wasn’t forced to renounce his position as Prince of Wales when he married Camilla.
The porphyria diagnosis is disputed. The lovely Lucy Worsley had a program last week with an apparently well-researched documentary on the topic. Modern interpretation of contemporary reports suggest that it was bi-polar disorder, characterised by periods of paranoid delusions amongst other things.
Oh thanks for that info. I didn’t see the programme – which I guess was on the BBC? – which I don’t pay for and refuse to watch.
I still consider it worth the fee for certain programs that avoid any hint of sport or current affairs. As with all information sources one needs do be discriminatory and also prepared to operate the off switch.
Is head loping hereditary? I hope this Chortles get a serious dose!
Possibly – they are massively interbred and across the whole of Europe.
I think he inherited his anti human attitude from his father who wanted to come back as a killer virus to wipe us all out……..We really are an unnecessary bunch of plebs to these elites are we not?
Was that the Charles who was separated from his head?
Hopefully, history repeats itself!
The lunacy of UK’s energy policy is shown well this morning. At the moment (9am) the wind is generating a full 2% of our electricity, the demon coal is at 3%, and solar at 0.04% and gas at 63%.
It is still four degrees below zero in my part of Cheshire and there is no sign of this magic wind-powered cheap leccy any time soon (ever?).
Never mind, Camilla, throw another serf on the fire.
Either the King is king of everyone who is the subject of the Crown or he is king of no one. To be the king of everyone he must be politically neutral.
People’s view of government is to a great extent made up of how the government’s polices affect them. If the King becomes too identified with policies that put burdens on the people, the monarchy might well become unpopular. That’s as true in the 21st century as it was in the 17th.
Instead of Charles I being swayed by his Catholic wife, and being identified in the minds of the people with the privileges of the ruling classes, and associated with the burdensome taxation on the middle classes, is the King to be similarly identified with an oppressive elite of the privileged who oppress with financial burdens but who lift not a finger to ease them, along with the apostles of the new religion of climate change who determine what everyone must believe on pain of debanking?
The 1970 film, Cromwell, featuring Richard Harris, is a piece of theatre, a caricature of a very complex story. The scriptwriters make many excuses for Cromwell. But it serves as a caution of what can be made of a heap of unstable materials carelessly handled, both in its historical content and in its theatre. After three consecutive terms in office when the Labour government get around to holding a referendum on the monarchy, the enemies of the monarchy seeing their time has come at last, the King or his successor needs to be above reproach.
We cannot have a King or Queen who gives us a latter day version of “let them eat cake”——–But that is what he is doing with his eco socialist pontificating at this eco carnival then jumping on his private jet back to another one of his palaces.
I would suggest a couple of months living in a community in a deprived area, where he has to get up at 6 everyday, walk or catch public transport to work for a minimum wage, then shop for food and carry it home, have to decide what time to switch any heating on, whilst also looking after children, and doing all the other menial stuff the majority of us have to do in order that he and his ilk can continue to live life on the high with every wish fulfilled, having never done any thing to earn it.
Gordonstoun
My first thought as well. Maybe that says something about environment not reliably predicting human choices!
My brief spell at boarding school had a profound effect on my character. The difference was that my Mum couldn’t stand that I was so unhappy, and insisted that I was removed. I still remember when one wonderful afternoon I was called out of class, to see my parents with my case packed, ready to take me home.
Was his mom just a benign caretaker of this absolute WEF w****** ideas ? Throwing his save the planet weight around when he’s probably got someone who actually wipes his Arse while on his private Jet or Train ! Also , William is proving to be a chip off the Old Block , hiring the Ex NZ , Convid commander in chief , old Horse Face Toothy smug b1tch herself as his own climate doom guru !! F-CK the lot of them !!…
Indeed…By hiring that fascist he has shown that he has no regard for individual liberty. GB News you bunch of soft cu*ts, how can you defend these people!
Obviously Jacinda’s new job was the payoff for the covid tyranny she imposed on her countrymen,
Chuckles and the rest of his family are traitors. He particularly has earned the right to a Cromwellian denouement. The rest of them can be dealt with later as necessary.
I don’t understand how two such sensible parents had such a nitwit of a son!
Brenda was a moron. Phil had the sense and kept his idiot wife on the straight path.
She knew which side her bread was buttered – both sides,
This overgrown child ponces around on his show farm with his handmade shepherd’s crook like Marie Antoinette pretending to be a shepherdess while people with knowledge and sense do the real work. If he ever ran a real farm he would know about plant food and have a lot of real life, practical knowledge. All he is good for is wearing lots of gold braid on his fancy (fanciful) uniforms replete with all the tawdry gew-gaws and baubles that he was given or inherited. I did not ever regret the oath I swore to HMTQ, I do regret that it was to her Heirs and Successors. He is not worthy.
Lovely picture of King Charlie chuckles!
Think I’ll get printed (As a new dartboard cover)
It is likely his speech was cleared with Number Ten. Whether tge blob there bothered to check with Sunak is uncertain.
Just had a look and as I type we are getting just 7.8% of our electricity from renewables. Down from 35% for the year.
It has been asked before but worth asking again, how are we supposed to keep our houses warm on cold winters nights if we are to be dependant on wind power when it does not blow?
Nut zero is a fraud. Instead of producing our own stuff, we import it from countries that have few, if any, emissions restrictions. So our emissions are goin up, not down, we’re simply exporting them along with the jobs that go with them. It make no difference to the atmosphere which country they come from
Did you see John Kerry at Charles speech? Bolt upright and hanging off of every word. It is frightening watching those of blind faith reinforcing the views of those with blind faith. They have power and influence and we have to suffer them.
£60 mill in reparations? And those countries will pay GB £120 Mill for helping them out of the dark ages and helping developing all the modern technology.
I’ve never been a royalist but Charles is a disgrace to his post, selling the country for his ignorant group think.
I was a royalist but all that changed when the Queen died, I can understand why she resisted the call to step aside for her son the thing is I doubt William would be any better. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
They get in with the Davos crowd for self preservation, still a bunch of *** though!
One thing that becomes obvious when Charles ascended to the throne, this is not a meritocracy.
I do object to being lectured by someone who has lived the life of ultimate luxury and privilege – its insulting!
There are no tipping points in thermodynamic processes unless the thermal energy entering or leaving the system changes in the longer term. Everything we see are just transient changes. It is why ice ages have come and gone.
Like all the other climate liars at COP28, King Charles blames the highly abnormal 2023 spike in global temperatures on man-made CO2 emissions, which is a scientific impossibility even by the pseudo-science of the climate fraudsters.
They lie by omission by hiding last year’s Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption from the general public. It spewed massive quantities of water vapour high into the stratosphere and is without doubt the cause of the recent abnormal global warming.
For details, see Hunga Games by Jaime Jessop: https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/hunga-games.
in view of the Markles‘ attacks he would be wise to steer clear of further controversy if he knows which side his bread is buttered on!
As a once loyal supporter of the monarchy I am getting very tired of the virtue signalling hypocrisy of him and Prince William. I suspect I am not alone.
I thought he was supposed to shut up about his hobby horses and political matters when he became king, but he’s still waffling on unmercifully. It’s unacceptable and has turned me from a royalist into a Republican, especially as Woke William is likely to be as bad.
Who would be the Head of State in a Republic, though? NOT a politician fgs!
Getting rid of the monarchy and disestablishing the CofE would relieve us of TWO burdensome relics of the past.