Equally "eloquent" is the quoted George Monbiot:
"It is a fundamental proponent {sic} of democracy that we should know who is speaking..."
He also couldn't correctly identify the organisations resident at the house he was shouting at.
Eloquent... Maybe. But ignorant.
It is a fundamental of democracy that the proponent of a thing should actually say something intelligible, and of course, set out an argument that can be meaningfully engaged with.
But they didn't manage it.
You can't actually argue with ignorant, conspiracy-theorising street thuggery.
It's only performance from the likes of @James_BG that makes it seem respectable.
It was a rabble. It was unable to express its grievances. And it had to resort to fantasy to compensate.
For instance, the occupants of the house are charged with having "destroyed democracy", with having "blood on their hands", and with covering up "hundreds of billions of corporate profits".
Grave charges. But no actual explanation about when/how these crimes took place.
This, from the article, for e.g.
Smith: "There are people whose business it is to make science look like opinion. Who aim to transform genuine feelings of climate grief and guilt into defended ignorance and positive denial".
Ok. Like what? Where? When? How?
And so?
It's a poetic litany... "eloquent"...
But it doesn't mean anything.
Even if it is true, why should there not be organisations who question science used in policy-making?
And what are "genuine feelings of climate grief and guilt"?
Who experiences them?
And then this, too long to quote in a tweet.
What does it mean? How is it a claim against the occupants of the house?
If there is any evidence of "lobbying at the highest level of our government", it's undermined by the fact of the government's commitment to #netzero.
They have no rebuttal to the "lobbying". The lobbying being (we must assume) little more than the publications, which you can read for yourself -- and which the protesters have not read.
thegwpf.org/category/repor…
It is also blind to the lobbying in the other direction, which is far more substantial.
In £ terms, it is several orders of magnitude greater.
And it is not done in public.
For instance, the cross-party consensus on climate change, which *is* used to prevent the public expressing a view on climate policy, was organised by a lobbying organisation, the Green Alliance.
green-alliance.org.uk/leaders_joint_…
What makes any Tufton St organisation different to the Green Alliance?
The protesters have no answer.
The conclusion seems to be that "WAAAA PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH US! IT'S NOT FAAAAAAIR!"
That's *all* it is.
"Eloquence" does not mask it.
Unless you're an idiot.
@James_BG
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.