@ret_ward Do climate sceptics demand observance, obedience?
Do climate sceptics divide people into believers and deniers?
Do climate sceptics hunt down, harass and censor disbelievers?
Do climate sceptics deny their ideas can be debated?
You're a very odd man, Bob Ward.
@ret_ward Do climate change sceptics ask for their critics to be locked up?
Do climate sceptics demand that democratic control of politics be suspended?
Do climate change sceptics warn that if their demands are not met, it will summon up Gaia's revenge, and end civilisation?
@ret_ward Do climate sceptics have billionaire ideological benefactors, who establish vanity project 'research' units at universities, that produce fraudulent claims for public funding?
Do climate sceptics hire sad little bald men to protect their ideologues from criticism in the media?
@ret_ward The answer to all the above, Bob, is no.
Can you say the same about climate change alarmism?
No.
@ret_ward So be very, very careful with that word 'cult', Bob.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Greens want the radical transformation of society & the total reorganisation of the economy, requiring the regulation of lifestyle, dismantling of democratic politics, deindustrialisation & degrowth...
But they think that people who disagree with them are driven by ideology.
Greens think that people who disagree with them should not be allowed on campuses, should not be free to publish or broadcast, should not be able to take part in politics...
Because they believe people who disagree with greens are the ones driven by extreme ideology.
Ideology is one hell of a powerful drug.
But it's not people who fail to worship Gaia who are its actual victims.
You don't see climate sceptics vandalising cultural artefacts.
The RCP's "green physician toolkit" is precisely the same patronising nonsense as the WHO's toolkit of the same name, discussed here a few months ago...
The two main ideas behind the toolkit are A) that doctors routinely make "unnecessary" decisions that have environmental impact, and that B) they should use their authority to advance an ideological agenda.
Currently, Britain's average electricity demand, not including peak demand, is equivalent to the average output of a wind farm with a footprint of 20,538KM^2.
But that is before we consider the electrification of everything -- transport, heating, and so on.
And then we need to store a vast amount of power, perhaps using hydrogen, for when there is no wind and no sunshine.
Misleading... "1.5GW of clean power" is only capacity. The capacity factor of solar PV in the UK is approximately 10%. So these installations that will occupy a vast area have a net capacity of 150MW. They will produce power at lunchtime, and mostly in the summer.
So whereas, for example, the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station has a physical footprint of about 1 square km, to produce the same average output, a solar farm would need to have a footprint of 268 times larger.
And you'd still need backup for evening, night & winter.
That's a solar farm on a square area of land, 10 miles on each side, producing expensive energy, on land that is charging immense rents, not on demand, which needs matched capacity, displacing agriculture, amenity or wildlife.
Seven reasons to be cheerful, despite the inevitability of Thursday's results and the next government... A thread and an article. Link at end...
1. The Net Zero cat is out of the bag. Even the government and opposition are rolling back expensive and unworkable policies.
2. There are completely different public discussion about science and policy today, compared with the recent past. Terms like 'denier' now cut no ice, and politicians don't find it as easy to hid behind scientific authority, thanks to lockdowns.
3. European & global politics are incapable of supporting domestic unilateral climate policy such as the Climate Change Act. The rest of the world is not going to follow us, and there is less than zero chance of persuading emerging economies to join our Net Zero suicide.
Radical environmentalism is a way that narcissistic but entirely mediocre individuals can make themselves feel extremely important -- above society, its norms and laws.
It's time to make them the subject of discussion, not participants. They are specimens, not peers.