Green billionaire-funded outfits of sinister, self-appointed spooks are monitoring climate sceptic social media accounts, using AI bots, to try to have them closed down. What weirdos!
All excellent stuff Ben. I must commend you for having the energy and patience to do this first rate analysis. But, for me, it misses the point. And that’s very simple: even if all the claims of climate emergency, climate catastrophe etc. are true (I doubt if they are, but that’s irrelevant), the solution, according to many climate scientists, is a radical and urgent cut in global greenhouse gas emissions – and the UK’s net zero policy cannot achieve that. It cannot do so because the UK is the source of less than 1% of global GHG emissions whereas major non-Western economies that are the source of over 70% of emissions have no intention of cutting them.
Moreover, net zero is unachievable and potentially socially and economically disastrous. In other words, as well as pointless, the policy is senseless and totally irresponsible. I don’t see how the lobbying of green billionaires can do anything to counter that.
That is to say there are a number of 'points' that are all equally good places to start dismantling the alarmist's claims. We should not allow one approach to preclude the others.
Arguments in the climate debate can get very complex and technical. And that can be alienating. And the significance of some points may be lost on some people, not because they lack knowledge, but because ultimately it is a debate about how the world is seen. And people have very different systems of priorities working in their thinking and their view of the world.
Discussion about an individual country's contribution to the total tally of emissions may not be persuasive to some people -- especially if they have been persuaded by the idea that the UK has either the capacity or moral responsibility to 'lead the world' in proving it is possible. No matter that we think neither case is true; the debate needs to be had, as it needs to be had on every other claim and counter-claim.
We have done a lot of work -- most of the preceding articles on this Substack for example, and a whole lot more to come very soon -- on the economics of Net Zero. We have not missed it out.
Our main interest is in demonstrating that environmentalism is a political ideology, as ideological as any early 20th Century political movement, with equally far-reaching consequences for society, which the movement intends to reorganise. The above article speaks to the nature of the apparatus and processes of that reorganisation. For instance, it demonstrates the means and motive of players in the climate debate at large who intend to prevent anyone from critically discussing the issues you raise, such as various countries' and blocs' respective contributions to global emissions, and the economic and social consequences.
That the green agenda requires the creation of institutions and legislation to regulate discussion may be of much greater consequence to people whose eyes glaze over amid talk of CO2 emissions, but who are interested in civil rights and political freedoms. Green ideology requires obedience, not consent to governance, and not free, open transparent and democratic debate. And that should bother everyone.
Thanks Ben. I understand and am impressed by the thorough, detailed and useful work you’re doing and agree with you that environmentalism is a powerful political ideology. However, my overriding concern is that the continuing pursuit of net zero may be on the point of driving Britain into social and economic ruin. Therefore I believe it’s urgently important for those of us who understand this to demonstrate to our political ‘leaders’, and especially to the voting public, that net zero is a senseless policy and should therefore be abandoned.
I think that’s only possible if the message is very simple. I believe the best way to achieve that is not to try to dismantle the alarmists’ claims, but – by avoiding ‘climate scepticism’ – to bypass them altogether, thereby confusing those whose aim is to prevent critical discussion. Essentially my argument is this: your green concerns may perhaps be justified but your proposed solutions are damaging and cannot possibly succeed.
The grand plan for progression and progressiveness is to make sure no one is ever offended again, thinks for themselves again, or questions anything they’re told.
Science, when isolated from challenge, simply becomes propaganda.
My opinion, based on the information as I interpret it, is good enough for me.
All excellent stuff Ben. I must commend you for having the energy and patience to do this first rate analysis. But, for me, it misses the point. And that’s very simple: even if all the claims of climate emergency, climate catastrophe etc. are true (I doubt if they are, but that’s irrelevant), the solution, according to many climate scientists, is a radical and urgent cut in global greenhouse gas emissions – and the UK’s net zero policy cannot achieve that. It cannot do so because the UK is the source of less than 1% of global GHG emissions whereas major non-Western economies that are the source of over 70% of emissions have no intention of cutting them.
Moreover, net zero is unachievable and potentially socially and economically disastrous. In other words, as well as pointless, the policy is senseless and totally irresponsible. I don’t see how the lobbying of green billionaires can do anything to counter that.
Thanks Robin.
What we try to show over at https://climatedebate.co.uk/climate-debate/ is that there are a number of ways into, and through, the climate debate.
That is to say there are a number of 'points' that are all equally good places to start dismantling the alarmist's claims. We should not allow one approach to preclude the others.
Arguments in the climate debate can get very complex and technical. And that can be alienating. And the significance of some points may be lost on some people, not because they lack knowledge, but because ultimately it is a debate about how the world is seen. And people have very different systems of priorities working in their thinking and their view of the world.
Discussion about an individual country's contribution to the total tally of emissions may not be persuasive to some people -- especially if they have been persuaded by the idea that the UK has either the capacity or moral responsibility to 'lead the world' in proving it is possible. No matter that we think neither case is true; the debate needs to be had, as it needs to be had on every other claim and counter-claim.
We have done a lot of work -- most of the preceding articles on this Substack for example, and a whole lot more to come very soon -- on the economics of Net Zero. We have not missed it out.
Our main interest is in demonstrating that environmentalism is a political ideology, as ideological as any early 20th Century political movement, with equally far-reaching consequences for society, which the movement intends to reorganise. The above article speaks to the nature of the apparatus and processes of that reorganisation. For instance, it demonstrates the means and motive of players in the climate debate at large who intend to prevent anyone from critically discussing the issues you raise, such as various countries' and blocs' respective contributions to global emissions, and the economic and social consequences.
That the green agenda requires the creation of institutions and legislation to regulate discussion may be of much greater consequence to people whose eyes glaze over amid talk of CO2 emissions, but who are interested in civil rights and political freedoms. Green ideology requires obedience, not consent to governance, and not free, open transparent and democratic debate. And that should bother everyone.
Thanks Ben. I understand and am impressed by the thorough, detailed and useful work you’re doing and agree with you that environmentalism is a powerful political ideology. However, my overriding concern is that the continuing pursuit of net zero may be on the point of driving Britain into social and economic ruin. Therefore I believe it’s urgently important for those of us who understand this to demonstrate to our political ‘leaders’, and especially to the voting public, that net zero is a senseless policy and should therefore be abandoned.
I think that’s only possible if the message is very simple. I believe the best way to achieve that is not to try to dismantle the alarmists’ claims, but – by avoiding ‘climate scepticism’ – to bypass them altogether, thereby confusing those whose aim is to prevent critical discussion. Essentially my argument is this: your green concerns may perhaps be justified but your proposed solutions are damaging and cannot possibly succeed.
More detail here: https://cliscep.com/2023/10/29/the-uks-net-zero-policy-an-update/
As for ‘UK leadership’: https://cliscep.com/2023/03/23/leadership/
James Corbett sent me!
Massive apologies, this was in one of my 'must read later' files. OH MY GOODNESS THIS IS DYNAMITE. Very good research. Will pass on.
Great piece, Ben.
The grand plan for progression and progressiveness is to make sure no one is ever offended again, thinks for themselves again, or questions anything they’re told.
Science, when isolated from challenge, simply becomes propaganda.
My opinion, based on the information as I interpret it, is good enough for me.