It represents the political establishment closing ranks against the public.
It was the moment that the idea that politics should represent and serve ordinary people's interests disappeared.
Parties dropped from their manifesto ideas about how to abolish poverty, and promised instead to save polar bears.
Rather than finding ways to encourage business and industry, they committed to policies that sent them overseas.
Anyone who did would face the wrath of those cronies' pet academics -- themselves funded by climate change capitalists - billionaires.
Here was the Conservatives leader, taking instruction from Greenpeace.
And anyway... The environment... Do you want polar bears to drown?
But the CCC and the cronies herding an entire generation of zombie politicians became more ambitious.
Well, there is a difference between making something somewhat more expensive, and abolishing a very useful thing.
A cross-party consensus on climate change means an agreement between politicians to change society and change the terms of politics.
But what I see is a form of politics that is dominated by special interests, to transform society to better service those interests, by putting decision-making powers out of the hands of the voter
It is about reorganising society.
That is what happens when you create and defer decision-making to technocracies and refuse to scrutinise them, their influences and their 'advice'.
There is no debate about it. Science has spoken.
They have decided how warm your home can be. How you may get to work. And how much freedom to travel you will have, for the next 30 years.
They are not going to relax those rules.
They have designed your lifestyle. They have designed the economy.
Yesterday in Parliament, MPs declared a 'climate emergency'.
They argued again to put political differences to one side, to address the 'crisis'.
They will cement themselves into their positions using climate change.
Too bad: climate change is more important.
Whether that's what MPs mean it or know it or not, that is what it is.
That is why I have never taken emissions-reduction at face value.
That is why we should not take "net-zero" at face value.
To take any of it at face value is to suspend political judgement.
Which is what they want.
Climate change is the biggest fig leaf ever.
The above is a political argument about climate change *politics*.
Science has nothing to do with it.
Anyone who says otherwise is hiding their own politics behind "science".