Thread by @clim8resistance

I find green smear and fear-mongering an absolutely fascinating indictment of environmentalism, and a sign of it's utter deprivation.

https://twitter.com/clim8resistance/status/1119711043939385344

I have written over two million words of *my* *own* on climate change.

Most of them are at climate-resistance.org. I have also written around 55 articles since 2006 for @spikedonline - my author archive is at spiked-online.com/author/ben-pil…

But rather than read any of those words to defeat my argument, green smear merchants instead prefer to try to find 'dodgy' connections.

In this case, an intrepid reporter discovered that MEPs have researchers, who are paid the average wage.

theguardian.com/environment/bl…

The author of that piece Leo Hickman, was upset that I had criticised him, his articles, and his newspaper.

But because he couldn't answer that criticism, he decided to investigate 'connections'. A bit like a climate change Carole Cadwalladr.

Hickman's story centres around the fact that I would not supply him with my diary. I didn't actually have to give him any information. He could find no evidence of impropriety. So he claimed the issue was one of 'transparency'.

But researchers are not politicians. The role of 'researcher' is a broad term. It might be a job, something equivalent to an assistant/PA. Or it might be answering letters, or compiling briefs and analysis. But researchers have no decision-making power whatsoever.

Thus, they are not required to be 'transparent'.

Hickman, however, knowing that he lacked the substance behind his eyes sufficient to criticise my analyses, constructed a story, all the same, in an attempt to undermine me.

Hickman's article has been the get-out-of-jail-free card for liars and fear-mongers for seven years now. For example:

https://twitter.com/RichardHCNourse/status/1119706637558865920

At issue in that case was the claim that the world has just 12 years left to tackle climate change.

Claims such as that are routine, now, in the debate. But they raise questions, not least about the scientific merit of these claims.

Rather than confront criticism about those claims, fear-mongers have got to be smear mongers.

Hickman's article is their go-to.. There's also this piece, which is a smear campaign funded by a convicted money-launderer. desmog.co.uk/ben-pile

That article itself was compiled mostly from the Powerbase smear site article on me. powerbase.info/index.php/Ben_…

The Powerbase article itself was initially created by one Simon Ross, of the then Optimum Population Trust, now Population Matters, the neomalthusian campaigning organisation.

I had written about his organisation. The Powerbase article was Ross's revenge, in particular for having a debate with him online. He was particular upset when, in reply to his smearmongering, the antisemitic and racist roots of his own campaign (and Powebase's) were pointed out.

So Ross raided my Facebook page, taking the photos, contacts, and memberships.

It's easier to trawl Facebook than it is to formulate a compelling rebuttal to the links between neomalthusianism, colonialism and racism.

That's how they roll. Anything to avoid debate. But they unwittingly reveal just how conflicted, and how weird, dodgy and... frankly, thick... they are.

climate-resistance.org/2010/06/inner-…

They believe that 'exposing' 'connections' -- which are not and never have been secrets -- they have answered criticism of their scientific, moral, political,and economic claims.

What they never explain, though, is how having once, and a long time ago, having been a researcher for an MEP undermines anything I have ever said, before, during or since?

Of course, they cannot explain it.

What *I* believe in should be clear from the articles I have authored, and the 'about' page at my blog.

climate-resistance.org/about-2

But what I found found over the years of 'debates' (such as they are) with fearmongers and smearmongers is that they are arguing with the climate change deniers in their heads, not with whatever I have ever said.

In a nutshell, if you claim, for instance, 'there are some quite deep problems with the economics of the Green New Deal', your alarmist counterpart will reply, 'so you deny the reality of climate change'.

So am I a climate change denying right wing fascist bastard, in bed with and in the pay of dodgy interests?

I'll let you decide.

Meanwhile, Leo Hickman left the Guardian to work for the WWF.

WWF are now accused of using mercenaries, to torture, rape, beat, and violently evict from their land, some of the poorest people in the world. buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwar…

Following his stint at the WWF, Hickman went to the Carbon Brief blog.

Carbon Brief are entirely funded by the European Climate Foundation (ECF).

ECF are the European wing of the Climate Works Foundation.

The ECF/CWF use funds -- $billions -- given to them by billionaires and corporations to lobby governments and to campaign public and covertly.

I'll let you decide who had the dodgier connections, Hickman or me.

My concern has always been principally with two things: democracy and development. I believe they are undermined by the climate agenda.

It seems beyond question now, that those behind the agenda, and those that profit from it, cannot make an argument for the privilege and positions they enjoy.

Fear and smear are all they have.

QED.