Cowardly Jenny Jones does not care for debate about the origins and philosophy and MO of her political tendency.
Greens don't do debate. There is no culture of debate in environmentalism. It expects only obedience.
Bizarre Jennie Jones doesn't mind her coreligionists depriving you of your freedom of movement, and the means by which millions make a living, but she is bothered by robust, free, open, democratic debate.
In the green view, debate is 'abuse' and having a different opinion is 'lies'.
Greens are people who didn't hear the word 'no' until it was far, far, far too late for them to understand what it means.
It is a developmental disorder.
I am serious.
Leaving aside the democratic problems of the HoL, she is not equipped to be in a position of responsibility.
She has no answer to challenges to her position. She doesn't think it needs to be debated. She doesn't think there can be a valid criticism of her ideas.
Jones thinks that blocking traffic is a 'democratic right to protest'.
The right to protest may well include routes that require closure to traffic in order to accommodate a march.
But it doesn't include blocking traffic as "protest".
The right to travel is democracy, too.
Simply not equipped for debate...
The fact and the problem for Jenny Jones and XR is that *vastly* more people want to use the roads than adhere to their extreme ideology.
If anyone disagrees, or dares to point out the fact, Jones' only answer is to screech "BIGOT!" at them.
For example, this is her answer to the point that blocking the roads obstructs access to one of London's most important hospitals.
It doesn't matter what the protesters let through, it's the traffic jam that obstructs.
Jones believes it is her 'democratic right' to kill people.
XR and the Green Party have made their case. Nobody in the country has not heard it. But after hearing it, very few people are moved by it sufficiently to vote for her party or to abandon the things that are necessary for their day-to-day lives.
Let's have a vote on it.
Greens are manifestly insane, unhinged, not capable of reason.
To the extent that it is not mere nonsense, this is green mysticism: "the climate crisis is driving the foundations of economic shocks".
People internalise this irrational green ideology. We should take it seriously.
Inflation and interest rates have nothing to do with 'climate'.
There is no climate change signal in cocoa production stats. Thee of the last four years saw record production. The last year's production was still higher than any year prior to seven years ago.
Prices of commodities often fluctuate, for myriad reasons. Greens always blame a single outlier on 'crisis' to support their ignorant ideological view.
Labour will further exclude the public from political decision-making by outsourcing policy to unelected panels of people, who will be tortured into submitting to the will of the fake experts that will bore them close to death, before providing them with rigged questions, and then writing up their deliberations to suit the conveners, not what the 'citizens assembly' actually determined...
Read my analysis of the climate 'citizens assembly'.
This is a somewhat shallow and hollow attempt to circumvent the major problem haunting global climate politics for four decades.
It was the 'free-rider' problem: why should we commit to self-harming policies when others won't?
Those other countries were 'developing' when the first global policies were being considered. Now they are well and truly developed, and their progress is accelerating, while much of the seemingly 'developed' world is stagnating, thanks in large part to rising energy costs, owed in turn directly and indirectly to the green policies she is arguing for.
Ritchie tries to counter what she claims is a 'weak argument' with a series of arguments that are even weaker.
1. Rich countries – that have emitted the most – have a moral responsibility
Why? The data provided by her own project show very clearly that there are no adverse signals in fundamental metrics of human welfare that can be attributed to climate change.
Moreover, the same data show that affordable, abundant and reliable energy are key to that progress.
So there is no injury. And thus there is no moral obligation.
This work is an add-on to our @ClimateDebateUK/@Togetherdec report on air pollution politics.
We show how green billionaires and their fake civil society organisations are corrupting UK democracy at all levels of government -- international, national, regional and local.
My 'debate' with Donnachadh McCarthy on @petercardwell's @TalkTV show this morning.
Starts at 1h.46m.44s into this Youtube clip.
A discussion thread follows...
Unfortunately debate with green zealots is not possible, because of what I call the 'Femi effect'. As with debates about Brexit with Remainer activists, you end facing a machine-gunned litany of unconnected factoids, precluding any focus on facts, let alone coherent argument.
That means you have to try to limit what you respond to -- McCarthy wanted to talk about everything from ice cores to annual global temperatures and his solar panels, not the rights and wrongs of UK climate and energy policy. And much of what he said was simply untrue.