Ben Pile Profile picture
Sep 13 5 tweets 2 min read
Watch the headline...

It starts as "Investors with $39 trillion". Then it turns out to be "Investors managing $39 trillion". Which then turn out to be "the Investor Agenda, a group of investor-focused groups that count many of the world's largest fund managers as members".
So it turns out that the sum total of the assets owned by the people "[urging] governments to plan fossil fuel phase out" is $0.00.

#ESG #ESGScam
It's easy to do this. Start an organisation, let's say "SAVE THE BANNANA". You offer all the top hedge funds with $100 trillion AUM between them free membership. They say "yeah, whatever". Suddenly, you are the voice of "investors with $100 trillion".

It's bullshit.
And it's bullshit that is lapped up by fake news merchants like @Reuters.
Yes, I know I can't spell banana.

• • •

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

Sep 15
A study!?

I've a thread on it. But let's take apart the headline claim, which is somewhat different.

£10.2 trillion ÷ 27 years = £377.778 billion per year.

Assuming an average population of 8 billion, that's £47 per year "saved" by this radical switch to green energy.
We know that, in the UK, green policy has cost us each vastly more than 47 quid.

And we know that conventional and nuclear energy could have been made cheaper.

Elaborate modelling studies, with high degrees of uncertainty, cannot delete such accessible facts.
And here is the clincher from the study...

It wants us to factor in climate change, using orthodoxy from the 2006 Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change.

"At a lower discount rate of 1.4%, the range of expected savings is $88–$775 trillion".

It's just BS.
Read 4 tweets
Sep 14
Interesting take.

But it was, of course, a self-inflicted direct hit.
And even on its own terms, it's simply daft to say that x8 prices are a 'miss', because we were looking at >x10 historical average prices just a month or so ago.

Many businesses, small and big, across the entire continent are going to be destroyed. Image
And many people are going to lose their lives, homes and livelihoods.

But, yeah, ha, take that, Putin!
Read 4 tweets
Sep 14
Billionaire-funded academia creates unreality -- a fantasy to power ideological transformation.

And moron ex-BBC staffers, conveniently housed at the same organisation, distribute the ersatz 'research' to their former colleagues.

Now the authority both of an ancient institution like Oxford and the BBC is combined.

A *professor* at *Oxford* said green energy is cheaper -- you saw it on the *BBC*.

So it must be true.

And now the debate is fogged. Despite energy prices spiralling out of control.
Read 50 tweets
Sep 13
Nope. This is much more likely an artefact caused by interpolating between frames to produce the 'super slo-mo' footage.
The algorithm that produces the intermediate frames looks for displacement of patterns in the screen space, to attempt to filter out different layers of parallax. But there isn't enough detail in the wing to distinguish it from the background.
Alternatively, the super slo-mo was achieved as stated by an artist interpolating between the frames, who just did a poor job from the original footage.
Read 7 tweets
Sep 13
Minimum & maximum sea ice extent are unchanged over a decade. Mean is slightly down, consistent with a long-term linear trend.

It is right to point this decade trend out in a short time series, when so many political narratives are attached to it.

@toadmeister
@toadmeister The major unanswered question to Arctic sea ice alarmism is 'so what'. The answer tries to hide behind the linear trends that caused incautious "researchers" to make false predictions from the late 2000s to the mid-2010s.
@toadmeister They also tried to hide the poor polar bear. Which should be a big enough object for a humble scientist to hide behind. But unfortunately, their egos were even bigger than the growing numbers of polar bears, who are also doing just fine.
Read 7 tweets
Sep 13
The WEF is not the only global "forum". It's arguably only the superficial expression of a much deeper, systemic disease.

There are countless global fora for the transmission & normalisation of particular ideological projects & perspectives and alignment of governments & policy.
Put at its most simple, it's much more attractive to politicians and governments to rub shoulders with the wealthy and fabulous ** and to share "ideas" ** on the global stage than it is to get down to the messy business of representing and ordinary people's wants and needs.
Balancing domestic political constituencies and interests is for yesteryear's politicians. Today, all political projects must have a 'global' and seemingly external dimension, and are framed as crisis. Hence, economic, foreign, energy and even education policy have these traits.
Read 9 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 on Twitter!

:(