Here's the data I was referring to earlier today on @JuliaHB1's show.
The idea that industry is harming society, or sacrificing future generations is manifestly nonsense.
The claims being made at @COP26 by people who should know better are dangerous ideological BS.
As was discussed on the#FLOP26 Livestream last night with @Future_Cities, world 'leaders' (ha ha ha) at @COP26 are completely out of touch with reality as it is experienced in both the developing and developed worlds.
And here is a thread about why national treasure, David Attenborough is completely misguided by a dark and dangerous ideology -- also mentioned.
Future generations have much more to gain from the continued economic and industrial growth than they stand to lose from slightly different weather.
But there is so much hostility to economic and industrial growth at @COP26 that it risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That is to say that @COP26 risks reversing the progress shown on this chart, on the *ideological* presupposition that civilisation exists only because of "stable" weather.
It's a nonsense. And 'science' has failed to correct the political narrative.
The likes of the Prime Minister, David Attenborough, Prince Charles, Justin Welby, António Guterres have put an ahistorical, ideological and dangerous political agenda before facts, science and democracy.
None of them will make any personal sacrifice. Yet that is what they expect from billions of others.
They -- and their crony entourages -- will continue to be extremely wealthy, and to accumulate power and wealth.
"Science" is just a fig leaf.
Here's the show.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Wed's #FLOP26 will be a special on climate science and COP26 in the wake of the #Climategate debate that has revised by the @BBC. I will be joined by @ClimateAudit, @drdwhitehouse and @aDissentient to discuss the role of science in climate politics, and why it gets so heated.
Here are @ClimateAudit's corrections to the BBC's dramatisation of Climategate -- which was itself an odd decision, and was written by an Extinction Rebellion activist.
On Tuesday, the #FLOP26 Livestream guest will be the force of nature that is Dr Richard AE North @RichardAENorth. We will be discussing the route from scaremongering to technocracy, and the parallels between global climate politics and the European Union.
Dr North was co-author and collaborator with the late, great and sorely-missed Christopher Booker.
They wrote one of the most important answers to the rampant fearmongering that now characterises politics.
"Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known. We always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgement in science stands on the edge of error and is personal."
"Science is a tribute to what we can know, although we are fallible.
[...]
We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge."
James Murray wants to excuse himself from debate about the agenda he works so hard to sustain and profit from, by pitching it as project fear vs project fear.
Maybe so. But if there is an 'our' project fear, it is one which leaves democratic decision-making intact. @DavidRoseUK
I -- and others -- have plenty more to argue besides 'there's no point acting if developing nations emissions are still rising'.
But it's a good point, all the same, and one of many that the #NetZero approach cannot answer, as even 'pro-climate' arguments point out.
Here, for e.g., is Prof. Dieter Helm arguing that the #NetZero deadline approach is flawed, and will drive policymakers into a collision with the public. His solution is a carbon tax, the merits of which can be debated, but which is much more realistic.