Thread by @clim8resistance

The "Evaluation of Climate Assembly UK" is an academic whitewashing of a deeply suspect political agenda.

parliament.uk/globalassets/d…

It makes no reference to my report on the UK Climate Assembly for @thegwpfcom --

thegwpf.com/content/upload…

The authors -- @StephenElstub, @dfarrell_ucd,
@P_Mockler and @carrickprojects -- show zero interest in criticism of CA's in general, let alone the manifestly corrupt nature of the UK Climate Assembly.

While I wouldn't expect politicised academics to take any notice of critics of their ideological preferences, their ignorance makes the point that the process is anti-democratic.

It lets academic activists and bureaucrats act without scrutiny.

Not biased, right? Totally independent, right? Not committed to an ideological agenda, right?

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Ditto, this 'academic' clearly wants to fix UK democracy -- to change society.

But what if we disagree?

"Oh, that's okay", says the 'academic', "we can have a citizens' assembly on citizens assemblies, and stuff them full of people who agree with us. You're not invited".

And this 'academic' is up to his eyeballs in Citizens' Assembly agenda.

As if he could step back and say, "I think Citizens Asseblies are a deeply flawed and undemocratic process, that only superficially deal with an intractable, deepening, widening democratic deficit".

And this 'academic', who also specialises in dismantling democratic politics, is so interested in public participation and deliberation, she hides her tweets.

Not unlike the Citizens' Assembly, which blocked its critics, didn't publish its minutes, and allowed no sceptics.

These individuals are clearly activists, not academics.

They are not seeking a value-free understanding of the world, but to change it.

That would perhaps be fine, if academia was a home to criticism, in which advocates of X & Y could debate.

But it's not.

For example, the authors were funded by @UKRI_News, because it too is aligned to the political agenda.

It makes no funds available to academics who may wish to criticise the policy agenda.

It makes many £millions available to 'academics' who will service the ideology.

That is to say that it is the mission of UK academic funding agencies to exclude the public from politics -- to dismantle democracy -- and to increase the political power and influence of unaccountable 'research' organisations and their panjandrums. Nick Stern being the epitome.

"Nonsense, Ben, we're just humble academics, freely investigating whatever takes our interest!"

Ok. So show me the @UKRI_News-funded projects that are critical of the climate change policy agenda, its ideological underpinnings, or the Climate Assembly.

I'm here all week.

The report is just activists marking their own homework.

@POST_UK should be ashamed of itself.

As my report showed, the biggest problem with the Climate Assembly is that the assembly members were self-selecting. This is confirmed by the 'evaluation'...

But look at this...

Some (how many) sceptical AMs tried to provide their colleagues "with alternative viewpoints to the presented evidence".

We know for a fact that the viewpoints offered by the convenors was extremely partial. Activists were passed off as academics.

That's a deep flaw in the process -- on its own terms -- which failed to respond to the assembly members' (and by implication, the broader public's) needs.

And that is an inevitable consequence of trying to reformulate 'democracy', as a top-down and "expert"-led process.

It creates bias. It cannot do anything but create bias. Because Citizens Assemblies are not natural democratic political institutions, demanded from below.