The Climate Assembly was an attempt to overcome the public's lack of interest in the climate agenda -- to manufacture a mandate for #NetZero, as I explain here.
Climate technocrats and fake academics had to force the Assembly into making decisions, and to then torture the data from their votes, to make it look like the Assembly had agreed with them, as I show in the report and here.
One of the four Lead Experts that ran the Climate Assembly was the former director of the Green Alliance.
She got promoted to 'professor in practice' after completing her PhD in her political activism, based on interviews with the MPs she had lobbied.
In both her PhD, and in the Climate assembly, she made sure that the views of people she believes to be climate 'sceptics' and 'deniers' were not represented. That's okay for her shoddy, worthless doctorate. But it meant that the Assembly did not hear a range of views.
Here's a video I made about the Green Alliance and why its lobbying is a problem for democracy.
Greens hate democracy. They fear it more than climate change.
The problem with excluding the views of people you demonise is that it ensures that those ideas cannot be tested. Hence green ideology is categorically anti-science and antidemocratic.
As the political establishment greened, so it descended into a bog of toxic green groupthink.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lots of terrible coverage for the government's #NetZero agenda, even from allies. A growing gulf between realists and zealots. I wonder how long it can survive in its present form, even assuming success at #FLOP26.
Britain could emerge from the global jawfest as a "climate champion", but then be one of the first countries forced to pull out of the very deal it brokered, because of domestic political pressure.
There is precedent.
Within months of the 2017 COP23 at Bonn, Germany was revealed to have missed its own green targets.
And within a couple of years of the 2015 COP21 in Paris, rising energy prices sparked a protest movement demanding Macron's resignation in weekly protests.
It's an even less plausible figure, which only serves to demonstrate the imposition of toxic political orthodoxy over free and unfettered scientific investigation and debate, not a meaningful scientific consensus.