When more than 10,000 signatures are received on a petition on the Government’s petition website, the Government automatically replies. When that petition reaches 100,000 signatures, it triggers a debate in Parliament. A recent response from the Government to a petition calling for the repeal of the Climate Act 2008 and the Net Zero targets reveals the bankruptcy of Westminster’s favourite policy agenda. But sceptics need to step it up a couple of gears if they want to expose the green agenda for what it is, and to topple green policy madness.
The petition rightly argued that allowing only “one side only of a two-sided scientific debate is not an acceptable basis for significant legislation that could have major impacts on the U.K.’s economy and citizens”. The Government’s reply is a boilerplate reassertion of green political dogma of the kind that got us to where we are. The problem with this response, however, is that unpacking and fisking such concatenations of ideological presuppositions, appeals to authority (“the Science”) and hopelessly vague claims is hard work, and invariably produces 10 words for each of theirs. Challenging the notion that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the work of “thousands of the world’s top climate scientists”, for instance, requires hundreds of words of rebuttal because the IPCC is a complex organisation and its work is a complex process, which is routinely misunderstood, but always presented as a ‘consensus’. In fact, it as often as not shows the opposite: a lack of agreement between scientists.
For those who prefer a longer-form debunking, I have attempted to address the Government’s reply on my Substack. Here I reproduce a handful of those rebuttals. I don’t say this merely to drive more traffic and subs – welcome though those would be – but to anticipate some green wag telling me that I’ve forgotten some key point, to devastating effect. That is how they roll. I haven’t forgotten… All of us, except climate trolls, have limited bandwidth.
If there is a theme to the Government’s reply, it is that, contrary to the petitioners’ claim, the IPCC and other scientific institutions and state agencies have settled any debate about climate change and its consequences. This is epitomised in the statement that “the Government’s policy to support ambitious action on climate change reflects the mainstream scientific consensus, and delaying action will only put future generations at risk”.
The main mistake here is that “future generations” are not an object of the “scientific consensus”. Science has nothing to say about “future generations” because (proper) science does not deal with things that do not exist, and things which are not material objects as such, such as society. If human society is a thing that can be understood as an object, then the problem for the green argument is that no metric of human welfare shows any sensitivity to climate change in the era of global warming, despite 2023 being the “warmest year on record” at “1.46°C above the pre-industrial baseline”. Put simply, far from making life more precarious, the industrial revolution, powered by the combustion of fossil fuels, has vastly increased human welfare, not least by reducing the life-threatening risks we’re exposed to. This diminishing of risks is quantifiable: reductions in infant mortality, increases in wealth and longevity, and a significant reduction in loss of life due to extreme weather and exposure to the elements.
Some climate researchers, who are categorically not on the climate sceptic side, such as Bjørn Lomborg and Ted Nordhaus, have tried to understand what the future will look like, given certain assumptions about economic, technological and social development, and under different future emissions and policy scenarios. Their simple argument is that if the past is prologue and society continues to enjoy economic growth, then human welfare will increase. The extent to which climate change is likely to limit this welfare can be estimated, and subtracted from the total. According to this analysis, a world which continues to power economic growth by using fossil fuels until the end of this century will be many times wealthier than today’s world – perhaps by 1,000% – but climate change in the form of nearly 4.86°C of warming will negate 5.7% of that growth. Similarly, a policy agenda in which growth is (we can hope) powered by a more ‘sustainable’ form of energy and resource use grows by a more modest 500% or so, will cause only 3.24°C of warming, and negate just 2.5% of that growth. In other words, policy has a far more devastating effect on the welfare of future generations than climate change can or will.
With or without climate change, future generations are going to be vastly better off than we are, according to this analysis. They will be healthier, wealthier and safer. So, governments and scientists who claim to speak on their behalf, to put policies in place to protect them, at our expense, must, at the very least, face public scrutiny and answer this criticism. It doesn’t come from ‘deniers’. It doesn’t take issue with global warming or climate change ‘science’. It isn’t funded by oil and gas companies. The Government is wrong: there is a debate.
The Government’s reply goes on to boast about the success of climate and energy policy: “The U.K. is the first major economy to halve its emissions – having cut them by around 53% between 1990 and 2023, while also growing its economy by around 80%.” But these figures are dodgy.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) records three metrics for emissions data. If we count our emissions based on what we consume, then U.K. emissions have fallen by just a third, and not since 1990, but since 2007. (See the top line in the graph below.)
Second, though it’s true that U.K. GDP has grown by 80% since 1990, the population has increased, and U.K. GDP per capita shows far more modest growth.
2007 is significant because it was the year before the financial crash and the year before the passing of the U.K.’s Climate Change Act. The reductions in emissions, therefore, beyond merely demolishing reliable forms of power generation, may well reflect little more than rising prices and economic stagnation. The climate policy agenda, far from creating a ‘green industrial revolution’, powering ‘green economic growth’ and ‘green jobs’ may have in fact prevented a recovery from the 2008 financial crash. On this claim from the Government, too, there is clearly a need for debate.
Third, the Government claims that it “understands the importance of affordable energy bills for households and businesses and is focussed on delivering for energy consumers”. It adds that it is “taking a comprehensive approach to bring down future bills”, which “includes reforming retail markets to be more effective for consumers through the Review of Electricity Market Arrangements (REMA) Programme” and “investing across the energy system and supporting the progress of new technologies”. But these claims are false.
Power prices in the U.K. are not expensive merely because of the shortcoming of the design of market regulations. Power prices are high because the Renewables Obligation and the successor Contracts for Difference subsidy schemes pumped (and continue to pump) vast amounts of cash from the consumer to green generators, and because emissions-reduction mandates closed existing and much cheaper forms of generation. Moreover, in terms of energy delivered, electricity is the smallest market compared to gas for heat and transport fuels. The “electrification of everything” required by Net Zero will thus increase the cost of heating homes and transport. And successive U.K. governments, with their European counterparts, have restricted exploitation of conventional energy resources and fracking, increasing dependence on imports, and thereby pushed prices up.
“Affordable energy bills” are manifestly not a priority for the Government because such concerns have been put second to the climate agenda. The green agenda requires the creation of scarcity, necessarily, and for consumption to be prohibited by price. That is the point of the smart meter rollout, which the Government claims will produce a “smarter energy system”, and that such “energy efficiency” will “reduce costs for all consumers”. That is false. “Energy efficiency” is not equivalent to lower cost. Efficiency with respect to use of a resource may mean that you use less of that resource. But if the capital cost of obtaining that resource per unit of energy is higher – as is manifestly the case with renewables – then the costs of using that resource will rise. The Government conflates ‘efficiency’ and ‘cost’ because there has been no debate about costs in Parliament to confront such mythology, and MPs and ministers have been resistant to people making such observations, who have been denigrated as ‘deniers’.
The Government and MPs, all political parties, and the agencies on which they depend, need to be told that there is a debate. They are not going to work it out for themselves without significant pressure.
Petitions work. The Welsh Government’s blanket speed limit has been rolled back thanks to 441,288 Welsh signatures – nearly 20% of the electorate – on a petition that demanded it “rescind and remove the disastrous 20mph law”. But not all petitions attract so many signatures. At the time of writing this, just 11,801 people have signed the Net Zero petition. Yet Net Zero will mean an effective 0mph ban on roads throughout the country for millions of people, who will be confined to homes they cannot afford to heat, even if they have a job, and even if their smart meter hasn’t disconnected them.
It is up to critics of the climate agenda – sceptics – to close that gap, and to put the case to the wider population. And there has never been, since the Climate Change Act became law in 2008, such an opportunity. The democratic torpor is lifting. In both houses of Parliament, a small number of peers and MPs, including former ministers, have begun challenging the Government on Net Zero costs. And ahead of a looming Labour Government, even unions are starting to find their voice. But it is not enough and not fast enough to stop the Net Zero agenda before it causes more harm. Sceptics should embrace the few remaining instruments of democracy left at our disposal. Meet your MPs at their surgeries. Send them letters. Sign petitions. And organise and support challenges to them when they fail to represent your views.
You can sign the Net Zero petition here.
Subscribe to Ben Pile’s The Net Zero Scandal Substack here.
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.
The harsh reality, for those who see nut zero for what it really is, a handy tool for socialist fascism, is that Mr Sunak is, now, the only game in town.
‘Sunak’s point is that the 2030 deadlines are now not so far away and when voters revolt (as we saw in the Netherlands) then an agenda hits reality; so what then? Unless you can establish that the public will accept the tradeoffs, you don’t have a Net Zero policy: you have a fantasy. Sunak has started the difficulty work of moving the UK climate agenda from fantasy to policy.’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/in-praise-of-rishi-sunaks-common-sense-net-zero-approach/
The Tories imposed this madness without debate. Should we reward the child who started the inferno then runs off to get a fire extinguisher?
A very tough pill to swallow for so many, indeed, but the PM is bright, competent, hard working and his heart is in the right place.
Democracy: the least worst form of government.
Are you extracting the urine again?
Hold on tight to nurse for fear of getting something worse.
As I say, there is only one game in town.
Outrage is entirely justified but what to do? Only practical policy, not fantasy, can be effective.
The PM, given a mandate, remains the individual most likely to interrogate the facts and apply pragmatism to, even reform of, the relevant statutes.
He has to undo many years now of Blair’s Britain and May/Johnson’s incompetence and he has to do it in the teeth of entrenched systemic functionary/public sector opposition.
Given the opportunity, he has the backbone, intellect and work ethic to win that fight…but, make no mistake, it is a two term fight; not easily won.
You will be waiting a long time. He is a Globalist invertebrate!
Yeah he did so well during “Covid” lmfao
Sorry but the last drink in the last chance saloon has long since been drunk by the fake conservatives. Time for a long period of exile.
Anyway I have no optimism for the future of this country- my way of looking at things is so far out of step with what seems to be received opinion that there is no hope of the gap narrowing significantly in my lifetime.
Democracy has been co-opted by tyranny. We democratically voted to leave the EU and every effort is being made to sabotage that by the globalists because it upsets the timetable for 2030.
Not just the Tories. Not one single question was asked by any mainstream politician as to the cost or feasibility of this nonsense. It was just waved through and remember that Net Zero was in all of their manifesto’s. ——It is a political class stitch up by people who work for the UN and WEF, not for us.
Or do you vote for Labour who introduced the Climate Change Act in the first place. As they say, caught between a rock and a hard place. Who is there, realistically, to vote for? They all chased the mythical sky-dragon thinking it would garner votes, but instead of having opposing policies, they were all the same.
And Labour will double down. It is right across the Western World as most governments have been captured by this madness. Our government is driven by the Civil Service and they will tell any government how it’s going to be. The civil service are treasonous and it’s still a crime punishable by life imprisonment.
The only ones I see critical of Climate Tyranny are Trump and Reform. Maybe there are others. But most are fully onboard with the one world government agenda that uses climate policies as the excuse to control the worlds wealth and resources.
The 2008 Climate Change Act was Ed Milliband’s, with help from his brother, both members of the last Labour Party government.
And, being the Heir to Blair, Call Me Dave and the BBC continued the madness.
Everything else is History.
Or do you vote for Labour who introduced the Climate Change Act in the first place. As they say, caught between a rock and a hard place. Who is there, realistically, to vote for? They all chased the mythical sky-dragon thinking it would garner votes, but instead of having opposing policies, they were all the same.
If Sunak is the only game in town, then it really is game over.
Nut zero is about attempt 50 by the hard left to impose Marx manifesto by stealth. The Fabian society has the wolf in sheeps clothes as it’s cost of arms, this is how they roll. Many of them know the global warming scam is just a very useful pretext. The simple fact is the Tories are so wet, corrupt and useless they went along with it, happily.
The sad point is that one can argue until blue in the face about the logical deficiencies in their arguments about climate change and so forth – but it doesn’t matter. The science – if there is any – is secondary to the main thrust which they seek to conceal, that is, the means of fine control and micromanagement of every aspect of our lives in the future.
Today they have chosen climate change, it could equally well have been something else entirely but just as tenuous and difficult to define. Given all the excitable guff recently about UFOs I fully expect to be told of the dangers of extraterrestrial invasion in the near future!
“excitable guff recently about UFOs”
‘The Science’ promised life on Venus, Mars. Flying dinos on Venus were offered. For the sheeple Star Trek, Star Wars, ET et al are facts and ‘science’. Orson Welles and the invasion from Mars. The sheeple believe anything. Aliens don’t exist. There is nothing else out there in the great cosmos. We are alone. But you are right. Along with fake flying viruses, ‘aliens’ are a great excuse to impose a world government.
“Climate change” is a massive globalist hoax and it’s a waste of time trying to reason with puppet politicians. The electorate has to vote them all out of office.
https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax
Only one party says they oppose Net Zero, but are we going to vote for them? Maybe there is more chance of Man City and Man Utd fans suddenly starting to go watch Scunthorpe or Rangers and Celtic fans starting to go watch Clyde in the 4th division. Reform really need to spell out the disaster that is Net Zero and how it is designed to take away our prosperity and WHY.
From what Tice has said in recent days it seems clear that Reform would neuter Net Zero.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/16/reform-uk-manifesto-richard-tice-key-policies-glance/
But Reform still believes the climate change cack, and worse still believes in central planned and directed economy.
But to what extent do they believe the “climate change cack”? Political parties are full of all different views on issues. Every member of a political party does not speak with one voice on everything. Also climate change is not a black and white issue where you have only 2 choices (a) There is climate change or (b) There is no climate change.
Climate Change does not just mean one thing like you were talking about a pillar box or an elephant. It is a very vague term that means different things to different people. To the rabid climate alarmist it means the end of the world, but to more pragmatic people it may only mean that we might experience a little bit of warming at night and in winter and it may not be any kind of emergency at all. It is a whole jumble of things and all of the moving parts are uncertain. I would like to point out what a sceptical climatologist called Judith Curry said “Sure all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in earths climate are not equal”.—–On your remarks about central planning and directed economy I will take a closer look at what Reform say.
That won’t get rid of the global nexus of bureaucracies.
Policy now comes from within the bowels of this monster, and is passed up to the politicians via national civil service to make legislation.
The notion that politicians made policy and passed it to the their bureaucrats to implement and administer may have been true before WWII, but it has become increasingly less so since.
The EU is prime example with its policies made in the Berlaymont building Brussels home to the European Commission, then fed into the national civil services for their Governments to make legislation.
Simply getting rid of the politicians would be changing the monkey whilst the organ grinder carried on.
The climate change hoax is horribly entrenched and enforced globally, but we have to start somewhere. Look at how Sweden bucked the global trend during Covid, admittedly only because their unique constitution prohibits its politicians from abusing the human rights of the people.
We have the situation at this GE where many have woken up to the tyranny of the incumbent Uniparty (Con/Lab/Lib/SNP). Why not at least try to vote the whole lot of them out of office. Living in Scotland, I have a voting perspective that the English may not have twigged on how the minority SNP separatists keep winning here in Scotland because the tribalist votes for the unionist Con/Lab/Lib parties get split.
In this UK GE, it is theoretically possible to mimic what the SNP achieve here if constituencies can somehow organise themselves to focus their votes on a single anti-Uniparty candidate who could then sneak through because the Con/Lab/Lib votes get split.
Yes and I think many who vote SNP have this idea that this dreadful bunch of cretinous goons with their Named Person Scheme, their gender ideology garbage, their failed education policies, their extra taxation above what the English pay, their determination to run away to be governed by Brussels with the audacity to try and call that “Independence” are really going to be protecting the best interests of people in Scotland. When infact they are just having a Power Grab to cut out the middle man at Westminster. I am really surprised they still have a majority but surely it is only matter of time before Scots wake up.
Wishful thinking, but *if* the Conservative party and eliminated all the woke (gender, etc.) and unscientific green policy crap including Net Zero in its entirety, if they stated unambiguous support for ‘British values’, a total shakeup of the Civil Service (to eliminate its politics), the elimination of the vast majority of quangos, and a programme of significant deregulation, they’d likely win with a landslide. One can but dream!
We are fighting propagandists who use the law to impose their doctrine plus fear, guilt and peer pressure to coerce compliance.
We aren’t going to push back by bombarding the sheeple with FACTS about the climate.
We need to start pointing out how many already die of the cold each year. How difficult it is to treat mould in a house and how dangerous it is to health. How sky-rocketing bills will mean more and more will have to choose between heating or eating. Environmental destruction by solar and wind power, including decimation of birds and, it seems, whales etc
When I occasionally get into a discussion with someone, I generally just say “it’s a load of bollocks. The climate has always changed and always will and bankrupting the UK to reduce our 1% of global emissions won’t make a scrap of difference.”
And the 1% is 1% of the three percent of greenhouse gases attributed to human activity.
There is only fake science backing up Nut Zero. That is why it is called Nut Zero.
That is why the Likes of the cretinous goon Jim Dale thinks scrutiny of climate change and climate change policies should be banned on mainstream TV. Because their “science” will be exposed as fake. ——–Don’t be surprised though if it soon becomes illegal to question any of the climate tyranny because this country is forcing itself in law to reduce emissions. You and I and all of the other non climate alarmists may be charged with incitement to break the law.
A bit like what Trudeau is trying to do in Canada
https://rumble.com/v4x7sge-this-is-now-canadas-greatest-threat-warns-trudeaus-csis-in-new-report-redac.html
Will take a look at that …cheers
I once said “the vaccines’ claimed efficacy was a load of bo**ocks”, to a close relative of Mark Drayford. He was somewhat taken aback and rejected the notion. Time is the great revealer.
The moment they get us talking about all their made up numbers they’ve basically won.
Any figure that is published regarding climate change be it the temperature, the amount of emissions, GDP change, any of it, is all complete made up bullshit.
But it serves many useful purposes. It mesmerises the general public into believing these people really know what they are talking about. And it bogs opponents down in ridiculous pointless discussions about things that can’t possibly be settled because they are completely made up.
We’ll never win anything for as long as we are pinned down in their web of nebulous, fuzzy concepts that allow them to throw up ridiculously specific completely unprovable figures.
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
Chris Folland UK Meteorological Office:
“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
David Frame Climate modeler, Oxford University:
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart Former Canadian Environment Minister:
“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”
Mikhail Gorbachev Communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.:
Or —“”One has to free oneself form the illusion that climate policies are environmental policies anymore. We redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy” Edenhoffer IPCC. ——–What more do people want? These people are telling us straight our faces what they are doing yet we still think it is all about “science”. —WAKE UP PEOPLE.
There is a massive long list of quotes like that from the UN I think. There is the one from one of the founders of the Club Of Rome: Maurice Strong where he talked about using the climate to gain Global control.
Here is the list I think you are referring to:
https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
That is the one.
Unfortunately the list is worthless because not one of the quotes has a source cited.
I tend to agree
It’s like all the arguments about whether “lockdowns” “worked”. My starting point was always to ask people to prove there was a deadly pandemic.
Correct. We have to attack the central idea itself, not its numerous outworkings. One of the govt’s claims is in the future, which no one can predict, and even objective attempts demonstrate that the effect of climate on future prosperity is negligible (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg). We must counter that notion with evidence of the damage it (Net Zero policy) is doing NOW. Until the idea’s credibility is demolished, it will live on.
Juggernaut——Object that crushes everything in its path. — The climate juggernaut crushes all dissent, all criticism, all legitimate questions, alternative explanations, all facts that don’t fit the polemic, all scientific journals, media outlets, and TV channels that dare to indulge in investigative journalism. The climate juggernaut is a scientific dictatorship that claims certainty where there is none. It only has to convince your aunt, your niece, your mother, your brother in law and 90% of your friends that there is a climate emergency and it won’t matter what facts you provide them about Polar bears, or Medieval Warming Periods. Try telling your next door neighbour that the effect of CO2 on climate is logarithmic and see where it gets you? They will stare at you like you are from Mars. The power of the propaganda of the climate juggernaut is so powerful and so overpowering that it is impossible for ordinary people busy with work and family life to resist. On issues that are truly about science you don’t need propaganda. No one keeps drumming into you that “Black Holes are real and happening now”. No one stands at a podium at the UN to announce to the world that “There is a scientific consensus on General Relativity”———They do that with climate change because it isn’t science, it is POLITICS, and you will not be allowed to question it.
Someone collecting surface temperatures from around the world on a equipment that is unevenly distributed and poorly calibrated to then come up with an average temperature that is measured in 100ths of degree Centigrade is not a scientist. For these ‘scientists’ to then put these average temperatures into powerful computers and calculate where global average temperatures will be in 20, 30 or 50 years time makes them charlatans.
“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important, and theory merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority”
Robert A. Heinlein
“Ah yes science, one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” —-Mark Twain. ——Twain would have a field day with the current “official science”.
The cars may do it?
As the effect of the zero emissions mandate, the impending ban on ICE car sales and all the local traffic emissions measures all start to bite and the supply of cheap and cheerful ICE cars dries up, when people realise they cannot manage to run an EV car. When even those who can manage to get hold of an EV realise that realistically they can only use if for local utility travel.
When the whole ‘Top Gear’ factor is wrenched out of people’s lives, when camping and caravanning holidays become things of yesterday, when people realise that travel for leisure is at an end for the ordinary low/middle income folk. Then people might start to realise where all this is leading, but will it be too late by then?
And as mentioned above, when their Smart Metre starts to ration them.
I can’t take this article seriously, nor any of the comments, with ‘Noilerplate’ in the headline and everyone ignoring it.
It has been corrected!
Noilerplate? Are there no proof readers at DS?
It’s pointless trying to reason with leftists. If they were capable of reasoning they wouldn’t be leftists. They deserve mockery, scorn, and contempt.
They are not there to argue a case.
They are there because someone is paying for them to be there.
Misguided? Deluded? Ignorant? Stupid?
Yep, there are plenty of useful idiots for people with money to make use of.
It’s not a scientific debate.
It is an ideological movement started by misanthropists and neo-Pagans. in which post-USSR Socialists of the World found a new home, and which has attracted fraudsters, grifters, charlatans, opportunistic ‘experts’, politicians, big business and international bureaucrats ever eager for more to administer.
You cannot falsify the unfalsifisble. Current and future Climate cannot be observed so it cannot be measured or compared, changes in Earth’s global temperatures cannot be observed and measured as the means to do so does not exist.
We are left with a list of claims that cannot be tested according to scientific process.
The Climatrons know this which is why the like to get everyone bogged down arguing over scientific minutæ leaving them to build up the momentum of Leviathan until it is unstoppable.
It’s time sceptics understood this.
” will cause only 3.24°C of warming, and negate just 2.5%”
Have you got a magic wand there or are you god?
Rolling back net-zero will be almost impossible until youngsters understand it is a major contributory factor in them being poorer than the previous generation, and that each successive generation will be poorer still.
There will be little growth and continued high energy bills whilst the young are wedded to the climate alarmist agenda.
The is no scientific ‘consensus’ on CO2 causing ‘climate change’.
Can anyone produce the results of a vote amongst ‘scientists’ to that effect? And which ‘scientists’ should be allowed to qualify to vote? Paleontologists? Psychologists? Biochemists? And if so, should their votes count?
It is not ‘consensus’ for the very few to dictate scientific or other truths.
consensus /kən-sĕn′səs/
noun
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2. General agreement or accord.
“government by consensus.”
3. Agreement; accord; consent.
There is no such thing as a ‘consensus’ scientific or otherwise.
Scientific progress occurs as part of the essence of scientific thinking to question and challenge sometimes entrenched supposed ‘consensus‘ views.
The practice of science is not a democracy.
Facts are not determined by votes and consensus but by evidence.
The confirmation email was sent to my junk folder, call me paranoid but I suspect dirty tricks in play.
I have written to my sold-down-the-swanny greeny Conservative MP repeatedly over the last few years, highlighting the stupidly, falsity and destructiveness of net zero, but he consistently replies with the green crap you highlight, and such that he now refuses to respond.
As the GWPF NetZero Watch Samizdat says this morning (May/28), it looks like both Tory and Labour are relegating climate issues “to the back seat”, in other works, assuming it a given, and the Net Zero policies will continue regardless of who wins. As they say, it seems only Ofgem have any sense of realism, but DESNZ are away with the fairies!.