Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Ben Pile Profile picture
@clim8resistance
Aug 22, 2019 • 15 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
As explained previously... They *ARE* going to take you car away.

I'm not making it up.

If you don't think that the removal of your car is high up on the political agenda, you have not been listening to them.
Today's generation of MPs don't understand why you can't just walk or cycle.

They have no idea what you use the car for or why you unimportant little people would need or want one.

You having a car is a problem they want to solve.

So walk.
"Reducing the cost [of public transport] relative [to private transport]" means taxing people out of their cars.

No political party currently sitting in Westminster has any intention of asking questions about that massive change to our ways of life.

It will therefore happen.
It's easy to get misled into believing that the climate change debate is about whether climate change is happening or is not happening.

Whether climate change is happening or not, it has become the basis of politics without regard for the degree to which it is happening.
This tells us that there is an *ideology* of climate change, distinct from the scientific facts of climate change.

"Decarbonisation" is more about transforming society than it is about transforming the ways we use energy.
In this transformation, governments and politicians believe it is their place to decide how you should live.

This is a radical departure from the principles of democratic governance.

Whether or not climate change is real, it is a ruse.
That is not a conspiracy theory. The dynamic is not one of a conspiracy, but of a degenerate political class & wider political establishment that has lost any meaningful connection with the public.
In a democracy, the principles of the political parties' green agendas would be tested.

The most basic question that would be asked is: "is green policy worse than climate change".

Despite alarmist claims, it might be better to suffer the climate change than try to prevent it.
The scale of green ambitions is no smaller than the scale of twentieth century ideologues' ambitions.

And all of the parties being committed to the same radical, political agenda means we are effectively living under a one-party state.
They dismiss all criticism as 'climate change denial'.

They admit no criticism to their discussions.

They are not interested. It would deprive them of their places, and their reasons for being there.

Banning cars is an extremely political act, dressed up as science.
An example, h/t @UKmacD

A news report that features no criticism of MPs, no intellectual curiosity about the ideology, no journalistic scepticism about the legitimacy of the agenda.

So what's the difference between @SkyNews and Chinese state media?

@UKmacD @SkyNews That's not hyperbole. It's a serious question.

If broadcast media and political parties are not able or willing to deviate from alignment with the government, what is the difference between a one-party state and state-controlled media, and our 'liberal democracy'?
@UKmacD @SkyNews And here's another.

No questions asked. No criticism. No interrogation. Just obedient, servile, uncritical non-journalism.

bbc.co.uk/news/business-…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Ben Pile

Ben Pile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clim8resistance

Ben Pile Profile picture
Jul 25
I don't think it is possible to overstate the profound unreality that dominates in SW1.

Even mainstream commentators are discussing the collapse of the established parties, the economic recession that has merely yet to be inaugurated, deindustrialisation, a deep crisis of values across the public realm, an immigration crisis that cannot be stemmed, prices out of control, even blandified high streets are disintegrating, and the risk of war...

Yet here is this plonker who believes that society and the entire economy can be reorganised, and the fact of policy failure can be washed away by glib, elongated gaslighting verbiage.

I went to extremely crappy schools. But I at least learned what the antecedents to the French and Russian revolutions were. Political correctness had already dissolved the English civil wars from the curriculum, but I'm pretty sure there are some lessons in that too. Perhaps Miliband and co went to even worse schools, but cannot think it possible that they are mistaken.

I'm not talking about £300 sparking revolutions here. I am talking about the catastrophic indifference to others epitomised by such idiot zealots that believe elections are mere formalities and a sideshow to coronations, whose agendas are set by higher courts.

I get called a "denier" and "big oil funded" -- neither of which is true. My fundamental question has always been: what kind of world do adherents to green ideology want to create and on what basis do they assume legitimacy for their projects?
For those who are preoccupied by "The Science"...

If you can't interrogate ideology, you don't know what science says. And that is because you don't know what you've told it or asked it.
Too many people believe that science is objectivity rather than the attempt towards objectivity. And too many believe that what science seemingly says is self-evident. But if the putative facts that science produces were self evident, then we would have no need of science.
Read 5 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Jul 14
Far from demonstrating "extreme weather", this report shows that there are milder winters, fewer frosts and less snow. It unsafely attempts to link floods to climate change, but even the IPCC reminds us that floods are not a meteorological phenomenon, and it is difficult to find any trends for attribution. "Hotter days" in the MO's metric can mean merely mild winter days, not the "lethal heat" that Guardian headlines will scream about. And on which point, the actually hotter days are merely free holiday weather, despite attempts to link them to "excess summer deaths", which fail as a climate change metric in multiple ways: the summer months see a much lower death rate; heatwave mortality was vastly higher in the past; only extremely vulnerable people are affected (who deserve better care); the death rate has fallen dramatically.

There is no climate crisis, despite the MO's desire to find it.
This is an especially silly chart. It seems to show how many days per year the temperature anomaly exceeds various temperatures. But it doesn't discriminate between summer and winter. Image
Look at the stupid headline the MO's report has already generated!

There is nothing in the report to make the claim that "extreme weather" has become "normal".

242 days per year show ZERO temperature anomaly.

Read 12 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Jul 8
Without the support of about half a dozen billionaire philanthropists, there would be no green movement, no climate change agenda.

These jokers admit it.

They plead poverty, but nearly all of UK, European and global "civil society" has been bought by their funders.
"Possible", as they are now styled, were PKA 10:10 -- and they were created to appear as a "grassroots" green organisation, to support the UK government's policy agenda.

But it all went wrong with some hideous -- and extremely expensive -- TV adverts.

"Splattergate" as it became known showed teachers, bosses, football managers trying to engage their charges with the climate message, and blowing up those who didn't cooperate.

They claimed it was self-satire, but it was too close to the bone.
Read 12 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
Jun 19
The Green Blob is recycling its "air pollution" proxy battle of the climate war today with this "new" report from the @RCPhysicians. It claims that air pollution kills 500 people a week and costs the economy £500 million a week.

It's bullshit.

theguardian.com/environment/20…
The fake scientists use exactly the same statistical sleight-of-hand as earlier reports to support a political agenda.

Read the three parts of my @ClimateDebateUK / @Togetherdec analysis of the fake science here.

climatedebate.co.uk/toxic-air/
And read my CDUK/@Togetherdec analysis of the politics of air pollution campaigns here.
togetherdeclaration.org/wp-content/upl…
Read 10 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
May 26
We know this, and we've known it for a long time.

Many knew that this was the point of the green agenda, before even climate change turned up as the problem that the solution was looking for.

What we need from politicians is a deeper explanation of green politics and action to counter it:

* How was this toxic ideology able to capture so many western institutions and political centres?

* How will the party address its own role in expanding that ideological project? Will it boot out the Gummers and Goldsmiths?

* What options will exist to overcome the legacies of its own actions and the following government?
Degrowth was the core of the green ideological project since the 1960s.

Abundance was anathema to environmentalism (and still is), because green ideology believes that an economy is a subset of an ecology, and is thus a zero-sum game. That is why billionaires were drawn to it. Image
Many Tories are of a similar view. They sense no problem with green rent-seeking and zero-growth. It is all in Gaia's plan.

In fact, many of these ideas came from the Conservative fold. It was only later that the centre of gravity moved to the putative left.
Read 5 tweets
Ben Pile Profile picture
May 2
Until Copenhagen in 2009, the main hope of COP climate talks was a one-size-fits-all emissions-reduction policy. At Paris in 2015, that was finally abandoned, and emphasis moved to making local government, not national, the main weapon of climate policy. How it's going...
The green blob realised that national governments were unable to pass draconian legislation to change society.

But local politics was in such a sorry state that it would be easier to capture by small numbers of activists.
Turnouts were as low as 12%. And it was very easy to lobby local politicians to form a consensus on issues that were proxies of climate change. Air pollution and planning policies, for example, advanced the climate agenda, with Tory, Lab and Lib Dem and Green support.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(