This changes everything, and must change how all scientists and concerned people think about the climate crisis.
For over 30 years, our leadership have been lying to us about their plans to phase out fossil fuels.
2/
All major world leaders and senior politicians in government, must have known about this planned fossil fuel expansion for a very long time.
These politicians all have large intelligence agencies, which must have known about this, and therefore, so did the senior politicians.
3/
Climate scientists have been taken in by senior politicians, simply because these politicians told them they were committed to reducing emissions, when they were actually lying to them.
4/
Most honest people, don't understand, devious, disingenuous Machiavellian people within the dark triad. Who can convincingly say something, and not mean a word of what they say. They cannot grasp total disingenuity.
Unfortunately, in my personal life, I have been at the wrong end of people who were very convincing, but totally disingenuous. The problem is, you can only see this with hindsight. Only, with that hindsight, do you realize that person, never meant a word of what they said.
6/
So a long time ago, I developed a hypothesis, that perhaps our leadership might be like this. After all, if you factored in this possibility, it would explain everything about the world's supposed inability to address the climate crisis.
7/
There is a widely used, but widely misunderstood, thinking tool, used in science. Occam's razor. Essentially, it says that the most likely explanation is the one that requires the fewest possible number of assumptions, preferably one.
Occam's razor, is based on probability i.e. that it would be very unlikely, that an explanation, requiring a multiple array, of assumptions, would be the correct explanation. However, it's not infallible, as improbable things do happen, but only very rarely.
9/
Whole tracts have been written, about our apparent inability to address the climate crisis. But it has never been "our" failure to address the climate crisis. It has always been the failure of our leadership, not us.
10/
In my very deep thinking about this, I posited one simple explanation, for the failure of our leadership, to address the climate crisis. That was very simple, that actually weren't even trying to phase out fossil fuels, that they were only pretending to.
11/
This single assumption, explained everything. That COP talks kept failing, not because of the intractable problem, but simply, because our leadership, didn't actually wanted to phase out fossil fuels, but they were planning to expand fossil fuel extraction/burning.
12/
But this would mean our leadership, both political and business, was actively lying to us, in a massive way.
As I've said, I know this is possible, because I've personally had a few people do it to me.
13/
The difficulty is, we don't know how many people in our society, are totally disingenuous, ruthless liars. I know from personal experience, it isn't common, and most people can't be that totally insincere, they'd find it impossible.
14/
However, even if it is only a small percentage, that adds up to a considerable number of people, in our society. Enough to people, many governments.
So I asked, what if our leadership, were such people, totally disingenuous.
15/
What I realized from my personal experience is that it is very difficult to spot these people, even when they are very close to you. They are so good at making excuses. But eventually, something happens, and you suddenly realize this person was lying all along.
16/
What I'm suggesting is that this UN report is such a moment. It is not just this report, but we can see it with our own eyes. Where governments supposedly committed to addressing the climate crisis, are actually still opening up new fossil fuel reserves.
17/
They use superficially plausible arguments (specious arguments), that it is supposedly part of a transition away from fossil fuels. But this supposed transition, has been going on for over 30 years, and we burn more and more fossil fuels. The pattern is the opposite.
18/
Please see my thread about specious arguments. Specious arguments, are so seductive, to the point that people cannot comprehend that they are false arguments. Often knowingly false, by people that are utterly disingenuous and insincere.
To conclude, it is not plausible that our senior politicians did not know, that there were plans to greatly expand fossil fuel use, because their own governments would have such plans, and their intelligence services would have told them other governments had these plans.
20/
The only plausible explanation for this, is that this was a knowing charade, to pretend to be wanting to end fossil fuel use, whilst knowingly intending to expand fossil fuel use.
21/
There is a killer fact, that tells us, that throughout this was their hidden agenda. They were careful, never to sign a binding agreement, to phase out fossil fuels. In other words, it shows they were planning to renege on this, all along.
22/
This report, validates everything I have been saying, for over 30 years, where I've often been left in a minority of one, and I have been accused of being cynical. No, I was right, as this UN report proves.
23/
Anyone who engages with this slimy liars, thinking they actually want to phase out fossil fuels, is either naive, or complicit, in it.
We must end the COP talks (they're a fraud) immediately, and demand a new format, totally committed to phasing out fossil fuels.
24/
I don't have the words to fully convey, how this totally changes everything, and it is delusional, to think we can convey the totally disingenuous people who are our supposed leaders, to take action. They are determined not to take action to reduce fossil fuel use.
25/
Please note, if you try to forcefully argue in favour of things like geoengineering, nuclear power, population control, and repeatedly ignore the contrary evidence I present, I will have to block you. I will not tolerate attempts at browbeating me.
1/🧵
It is not because I don't tolerate other views. I am quite happy to agree to disagree. But when it comes to religious like fervour, with fanatical mono views, where people think the whole climate and ecological crisis, can be solved by a single solution, it is beyond the pale.
2/
What I normally do, is to provide counter evidence as to why these mono solutions, are not the all singing and dancing solutions, these people think they are. I am just trying to illustrate, how the problem is more complex and nuanced than they are making out.
3/
This is probably the pivotal issue, in why our leadership is failing to see the climate and ecological crisis, for the crisis it is, and are not responding appropriately. They only understand economics, only listen to it, and have no grasp of physical and ecological reality.
1/🧵
I would highly recommend that people follow @ProfSteveKeen and look at his evidence based critique of William Nordhaus' massively influential DICE model, modelling economic climate impacts, which is scientifically ignorant to a ridiculous degree.
I knew economists seem to have weird ecologically ignorant and unrealistic ideas about probable climate impacts, having previously clashed with Professor Richard Tol, a notorious climate crisis denier. But I had no idea where their ignorance stemmed from.
3/
When this metric was first released, we had 12 years of the carbon budget left to halve our emissions, now we have 6 years, really less because we have not brought down emissions at all. Our governments have done nothing.
When this metric was first released, the deniers misrepresent it, as saying the world was going to end in 12 years. When no, it meant, the moment of keeping warming below 1.5C of warming, the Paris Agreement target, would be lost, locking us into a dangerous trajectory.
2/5
The sad thing is having spent years going down the rabbit hole, none of our leaders, very few of the public, because of the failure of the media, even know what a carbon budget is, let alone why it matters to us.
3/5
@GretaThunberg made this caption famous, but I was saying it long before. I think I know what Greta means by it, but I certainly know what I mean, and I will explain it below the line.
I need to deal with this, because there seems to be massive denial about this reality.
2/
We live in a world with a changed future, as the richest people in our societies, have been living extravagant unsustainable lifestyles. They've also been trying to drag the rest of humanity along with them, but the rest of society, does not have their carbon footprints.
3/
I'm constantly amazed, by every time I mention emissions reductions, and reductions in consumption. That a whole lot of people, confidently tell me that the public wouldn't stand for this, or we need these emissions, to be human. #MuchProjection
1/🧵
None of those people using these arguments, seem to be aware that over 80% of the global population, has never flown in a plane, and do not own a car, and never have. So the public they are talking about, is not the global public.
2/
The public they are talking about is their imagined public, in the US, the UK etc. But even this is a mistaken perception, because even in the rich countries, about half of the population don't fly in a given year, there is a sizeable proportion, living in poverty, etc.
3/
I've been trying to frame a huge problem about the climate crisis, and I am struggling for the terms to frame it, and the whole concept.
The problem with most thinking about the climate crisis, is most of the policy and technology, is not real and founded in reality.
1/🧵
I was just trying to brush up, on @KevinClimate analysis, of carbon capture, NETs, geogengineering et al, in video presentations. However, the problem is we're talking about things which don't exist, and which might never exist, at the scale necessary.
2/
However, it is not just these technologies, but climate policy in general. Not just Net Zero, but most floated climate policy of the last 30+ years. It's all just hot air and talk, that has not lead to any real world falls in emissions.
3/