'There is a growing risk that Russia could attack the UK, and the nation's "sons and daughters" need to be ready to fight, the head of Britain's armed forces has said.'

Our leadership, has a clear case of brain rot, I mean they are totally unhinged. The idea of fighting a war with Russia, is totally insane.

1/🧵news.sky.com/story/uks-sons… The insanity of this rhetoric, is that Russia has a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, so if Europe were to fight some sort of war with Russia, there would be a very high probability of it going nuclear, and mutually assured destruction of both Europe and Russia.
2/

It's now clear what lay behind the Liverpool FC parade tragedy. It was nothing but a case of road rage, and over-entitlement, by a narcissistic driver, who thinks everything is about them.

I write this as a lifelong cyclist, who has long experienced this aggressive and threatening behaviour.

1/🧵theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/d… A minority of drivers, turn into an over-entitled monster, when they get behind the wheel of a car, acting aggressively to other road users. God forbid if you get in their way, or slow their journey by even a second. They use their car as a weapon, with which to intimidate others.

I repeat, this is a small, but significant minority.
2/

Our modern culture, has totally lost the plot. We have lost all perspective in the hierarchy, of serious risks to our societies and civilization. The defining issue, should be the climate and ecological crisis. as this will determine everything in the near future.

I had been meaning to write this thread for some time, but this very confused article about UBI, Universal Basic Income, and AI, prompted me to write it now.

"Maybe we can keep humanity alive via redistribution. Machines that don’t require workers could produce enormous amounts of output, so it might be easy to raise the money for the UBIs of the future."

In this vision of the future, AI will put most people out of work, and we will need some way of providing income to those who no longer have jobs.

It's what I call, a mainstream economist view, where economists imagine the future as being a continuation of the American, and Western economy, as if the climate and ecological crisis, does not exist.

This is because all but a handful of enlightened economists, have got absolutely no grasp of what the climate and ecological crisis means for us, as they are totally lacking in any relevant knowledge about this.
theguardian.com/business/2025/…
1/🧵 “There are now no non-radical futures. The choice is between immediate and profound social change or waiting a little longer for chaotic and violent social change. In 2023 the window for this choice is rapidly closing.” Professor Kevin Anderson, leading climate scientist @KevinClimate

I keep using this quote from Prof Kevin Anderson, because it perfectly sums up this situation, and he is a leading climate scientist.

I have my own framing of this situation, which is much older, and wider, but I am not a highly published leading climate scientist, so I am saying, don't take my word for it, listen to this.

The whole problem, and this is the real crisis, not say anthropogenic climate change ACC itself, is that there is profound denial about what this, and several degrees Centigrade of warming, actually means for us.

Even many climate scientists, cannot get their head around what this means. They cannot grasp that the economic model, industrial capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, and the societies and economies it gave rise to, are over. What we have done, makes the future, radically different, no matter what route we chose.
bellacaledonia.org.uk/2023/04/18/no-…
2/

Please, can we get something clear. The recovery of the Otter in the UK, especially England is nothing to do with "intensive conservation work", and "improving water quality". I'm sure lots of conservation bodies are willing to take credit for it, for PR. Water quality in general is much worse in UK rivers, not better.

This is terrible communication strategy, leading to anglers falsely blaming conservationists for re-introducing Otters, as they now prey on stocked Carp.

The recovery of Otters, is almost certainly, purely down to the banning of the organochlorine pesticides, especially dieldrin and aldrin, used as seed coatings.

I am creating this short thread, for public information, because there is so much rubbish repeated about this, causing massive misunderstanding about this issue.

You will have to rely on my synthesis and understanding of this, as you will only find glimpses of insight in the literature. However, I have followed this matter since the 1970s, and I have the ecological knowledge and fishery knowledge to explain this.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵 These organochlorines, accumulate in Otters through a process called biomagnification and bioaccumulation. As fish eaters, eating fish, with moderate levels in them, these were magnified to much greater levels in the Otters, accumulating in their fatty, (adipose) tissues. Meaning they disappeared from most English rivers.

As the levels of these compounds, dropped after they were banned, it allowed Otters to recover, as they were no longer being poisoned by eating fish. The Otters simply came from strongholds in Wales and Scotland, where there were lower levels of these chemicals.

Yes, attempts were made to re-introduce Otters, but these failed for several factors. The dog Otters were killed on roads, and the pesticide levels were still too high. So the vast majority of Otters now found in England, came from remaining populations in Scotland, Wales and the West Country, naturally re-populating English rivers, none of it with assistance from conservationists.
mammal.org.uk/blog/2022/02/o…
2/

Let me try to sum up, why climate change denial, or minimization, is a lost cause. Those who deny it, or deny what a threat it is to humanity, do so because they don't want the system to be changed, to address the climate and ecological crisis.
1/🧵 This is a lost cause, because the single action, which will cause the most radical change to our system, is trying not to change our system, to address the climate and ecological crisis. Doing this will collapse our civilization. Change can't be more radical than this.
2/

I want to give a huge thanks to everyone that has responded.

There is no doubt whatsoever, that Elon Musk's X/Twitter has had major changes to it's algorithm, particularly in the last 4-5 months, which stops mutuals seeing each other's posts. I can only find their posts if I search them out.
1/🧵

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1998720695807648150

This seems to deliberately target progressives, but not just those with overt political views, just anyone who doesn't endorse right wing populism. Many of these people whose posts I rarely see now, are photographers, birders, natural history people, who rarely post politicised views.
2/

"Human rights official says politicians are playing into the hands of the populist right as they seek to tackle migration"

Remember, you heard it from me first. Not just yesterday, but for the last year. I give you tomorrow's news today.

1/🧵theguardian.com/law/2025/dec/1… It's so obvious that Starmer is playing right into the hands of Reform, that you have to wonder if Keir Starmer is a secret admirer of Nigel Farage, because if Starmer isn't aware of what he's doing, he's someone's useful idiot.

2/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1998544…

"US plans to start checking all tourists' social media"

This is why the whole "free speech" shtick of the American right is totally fake, the opposite of the truth, a classic Orwellian sleight of hand, doublespeak, doublethink, where everything is the virtual opposite of what is stated.

1/🧵news.sky.com/story/us-plans… What this is about, is ideological purity, a fake right wing racist and white supremacist narrative, carefully dressed up in false justifications. It's a narrative based on total lying. The oligarchs, peddling this new fascism, know that their specious narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
2/

"Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to curb ECHR to halt rise of far right"

Is Keir Starmer just stupid, or is he following orders/directions/coercion?

Keir Starmer has got this stupid idea, that if he appeases the right, with a partial anti-immigrant policy, a sort of "Reform-lite", that he will draw support from Reform, and the far right. That's his argument anyway.

It plainly doesn't work, because support for Reform and the far right has grown, and they absolutely hate Starmer and Labour. I see no evidence whatsoever, that Starmer has won over one single right wing voter, through this strategy.
theguardian.com/law/2025/dec/0…
1/🧵 The reason this is stupid strategy, a that doesn't work, is very simple.

1) It makes it falsely appear as if Reform, and the racist/xenophobic right, has a genuine point.

2) This actually increases support for Reform and the nasty right, because no one, with xenophobic or racist tendencies, would ever consider voting for Starmer/Labour.
2/

When I made this suggestion, in response to Elon Musk calling for the abolition of the EU, I got the usual abuse from right wing nuts, that I was a commie, a retard, etc, etc. I will justify what I said. Billionaires, should not exist.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1997406558091636738

In any fair and rational system, there would be progressive taxation, that made it impossible for anyone to accumulate that sort of wealth. By progressive taxation, I mean wealth taxation, that increases proportional to the wealth being accumulated. So a moderate wealth tax on millions.

However, if someone starts accumulating hundreds of millions, this tax should get progressively higher, until it becomes impossible to accumulate billions.

There are 2 main reasons I say this. Neither of them involves either envy, or ideology.
2/

"Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden says more must be done to lift people out of hardship and help people into work"

I want to illustrate, the complete lack of joined up thinking, not just by the UK's governments, but all governments in the Western world.

1/🧵theguardian.com/politics/2025/… The Starmer government, like previous governments, claim that the way to lift people out of poverty, is to force them into paid work. Except:

"AI ‘apocalypse’ could take away almost 8m jobs in UK, says report"

2/theguardian.com/technology/202…

"Wes Streeting orders review of mental health diagnoses as benefit claims soar

Health secretary has asked experts to investigate whether normal feelings have become ‘over-pathologised’"

This outrageous neoliberal ideology. The idea that normal feelings have been over pathologised, is a right wing talking point, emanating from right wing think tanks. The only medical people who support this perspective, are right wing ideologues.
theguardian.com/society/2025/d…
1/🧵 What is ironic, is there's massive evidence, that neoliberal doctrine, which Wes Streeting is an arch exponent of, he is a neoliberal extremist, is hugely contributing to a rise in mental illness. It is giving people mental illness, by not seeing them as fully human, but consuming units. Simply cogs in the machine.

Neoliberal extremists like Wes Streeting, are only looking at the increase in those claiming benefits for these illnesses. It is not looking at the other dimensions of an increasing in mental illness, which have nothing to do with claiming benefits. In other words, there is a huge increase in mental health problems, with those in work, and not seeking benefits.

The right wing press, continuously pumps out this false idea, outright disinformation and propaganda, that people just go along to their GP, and say they are feeling mildly anxious or a bit down, and the next thing they are receiving maximum disability benefits and PIP. This is almost the diametric opposite of reality, where it is increasingly difficult to get mental health diagnoses, because of this prevailing neoliberal dogma, which assumes anyone with a mental health problem, is swinging the lead.

Labour itself, has contributed to this, by previously introducing fitness for work tests, run by private companies, under the New Labour regime (founded on extreme neoliberal doctrine.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC81…
2/

"Hillsborough families decry ‘bitter injustice’ that no officers will face disciplinary proceedings"

We see this time and time again, not just with the police, but all officials, politicians and establishment figures. They are rarely held responsible for even terrible crimes.

The system, uses exactly the same method for achieving these aims. Dragging it out for as long as possible, to let them retire, or die of old age, before the truth comes out.

The Hillsborough Disaster, happened in 1989, and the basic facts, were in official circles, widely known at the time. The way in which the basic truths, were only officially acknowledged, 36 years later, was not an accident. It isn't that this sometimes happens, it always happens.

I cannot think of a single example, where the truth and the facts, were acknowledged and established at the time, so those responsible, could be held properly accountable.

This always happens. Not, it happens sometimes.
theguardian.com/football/2025/…
1/🧵 For a long time, I have had a fully worked out hypotheses, supported by all the circumstantial evidence, of why this happens. The system, is fundamentally corrupt. If anything happens, that calls into question the honesty, and moral rectitude of the system, the whole establishment, works together, to cover-up what went wrong.

This need to lie and cover-up, is what makes the system, fundamentally corrupt. Often, the cover-up, involves far more serious crime and dishonesty, than what they are covering up. They are compelled to lie.

I think the reason, it's very rare for someone to be held criminally responsible for their actions, is very simple.

If the people responsible, were held criminally responsible, and dealt with and sentenced appropriately, they'd have no reason for keeping quiet. In their defence, they'd tell everything they knew, and this would be truly embarrassing for the whole system.

So they are not held legally accountable, so they keep their loyalty to the system, and don't tell the public what they know.
2/

"Water shortages could derail UK’s net zero plans, study finds"

What this demonstrates is a complete lack of joined up thinking. Climate and other government environmental planning, is incoherent and unrealistic. This is not confined to the UK.

This incoherence and unrealistic planning, demonstrating a lack of joined up thinking (making all government planning coherent), seems to result from not taking the climate and ecological crisis seriously. Putting economic growth first, even though there will be huge economic impacts.

Overall, things like Net Zero, seem more like a list ticking exercise, so politicians can pretend they have done their duty, whilst doing very little to nothing.

As I keep trying to get across, politicians and economists, have a totally unrealistic grasp of dealing with near term, climate and ecological impacts, which are going to be far more severe than envisaged.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵 It's not exactly clear, what is going on here. Are mainstream politicians just plain ignorant and in denial? This explanation is not really credible, because there are informed and honest scientists, who will give realistic evaluations if asked.

The #NationalEmergencyBriefing on 27 November, gave a realistic assessment, by expert scientists and planners, on the situation we face, but major mainstream politicians and economists, just ignored it, as they always do.

When I say it's not clear what is going on, I mean the actual thinking of senior government figures, and most mainstream, senior politicians. The mainstream media and senior journalists are not fit for purpose, in that they refuse to challenge the senior figures in the government, to explain their thinking.
nebriefing.org
2/

"Revealed: Europe’s water reserves drying up due to climate breakdown"

Future climate related water shortages, are one of the near future challenges we face. Yet, our leadership, is remarkably indifferent to these threats.

However, the big challenge, is how these near future threats interact. You can without much difficulty, see how water shortages, combined with agricultural yield, and how water shortages could cripple industry, and the economy.

Nevertheless, these interactions are far too simplistic, because there are a myriad way, near future climate impacts, are going to interact, and most have never even been thought of.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵 As I have pointed out with regard to the danger of climate induced civilization collapse, no one, no field of science, no institution, has ever systematically studied the resilience of our societies, and our civilization, to climate and ecological impacts.

Some well known scientists, who have dismissed the possibility of civilization collapse, as unscientific, because there are no scientific papers supporting this concern, are not being scientific. Because there has never been scientific research into this, so of course there are no papers supporting a scenario, that has never been examined. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

Don't take my word for it, that this has never been studied, read the paper linked to.

I have always been very unsettled, for well over 40 years, why no one has been looking into this.

As a graduate in ecology, I realize the practical difficulties. When you look at interactions on this scale, the complexity is overwhelming, and well beyond anything else, ever successfully modelled.

However, even if the conclusion of such a well funded study, was that it was far too complex to investigate, using any known scientific methodology, it would be useful, if only to tell us that we were playing with fire, and flying blind.

I don't know, how conscious scientists/governments have been about the failure to study this. Is it a case of they just don't want to know, because they already know this, because they know the conclusions would be very frightening. Or is it some sort of unconscious denial?

You could only really establish this, if some sort of parliamentary committee investigated this, and asked tough questions of key politicians and scientists, to find out why such a vitally important topic, has never been investigated.
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
2/

I want to make it clear, why I so often hark back to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. There is a very powerful reason for doing his. I hadn't just become environmentally aware then. In fact, I'd become environmentally aware over 20 years earlier, and was 32, starting an ecology degree as a mature student.

In other words, I had a very clear impression of the time and the lead up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, because here, was the things I had passionately believed in for over 20 years, finally being addressed. It was a time of incredible optimism by the environmentally aware. Finally politicians were taking the ecological and climate crisis seriously, and were going to address the problem. Rather, it seemed that way at the time.
1/🧵

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1992271771475608051

I attended a seminar around the time I started university, a panel of leading scientists. The chair of the panel, Professor Alan Wellburn, then probably the leading expert on air pollution, opened by saying, now we know what the problem is, we can address it.

I was troubled by this, and had the temerity to stand up and challenge this narrative. I said most of this situation, was actually known at the time of the 1972 UN Environment Conference, and the only reason the 1992 Rio Earth Summit happened, was because in 1983, the UN was alarmed that no progress had been made on the agreed action plan, of the 1972 UN Environment conference, and they set up the Brundtland Commission.
un.org/en/conferences…
2/

"Boris Johnson ‘beyond contempt’ for attack on Covid inquiry’s findings and refusal to apologise"

Boris Johnson was totally unfit for public office, and he has got a record of refusing to take responsibility for lies and errors, that goes back to his school days.

1/🧵independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi… Max Hastings, himself a staunch Conservative, warned people about the dangers of Boris Johnson becoming PM, many years before he became PM.

What's more, Max Hastings was his former boss, as editor of the Telegraph and has known him, his whole working life, where Johnson was first forced to resign as a journalist, for making stuff up, and then as Shadow Culture Secretary, for lying to then Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, about an affair he'd had. He is an unrepentant serial liar.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2/

"Cop30 delegates ‘far apart’ on phasing out fossil fuels and cutting carbon"

With hindsight, it is now clear that the most powerful countries in the world, have always been opposed to phasing out fossil fuels, even though it is tacit in the UNFCCC signed in 1992.

Essentially, the most powerful countries, have played a devious game, of pretending that they want to address the climate crisis, whilst always opposing the only realistic way of achieving this, the phasing out of fossil fuels. This has been the sticking point, for over 30 years.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵 If you read the UNFCCC, it is very clear that it sees itself as a continuation of the 1989 Montreal Protocol, which phased out CFCs, leading to the depletion of the ozone layer. It is very clear about this, as it states it multiple times.

This makes it absolutely clear, that the tacit strategy was the phasing out of greenhouse gasses, causing anthropogenic climate change. This could only be realistically achieved by phasing out fossil fuel burning. However, the means of achieving this was kept open, to let this be settled with the COP talks. No one envisaged in 1992, that we would be on COP30, over 33 years later.

The whole purpose of separating climate change from the rest of the sustainability/ecological crisis, was for a quick agreement. It was never envisaged, that the crisis would only be seen as climate change, when this is only part of the much bigger ecological crisis, which would be far more difficult to address.
unfccc.int/files/essentia…
2/

"The fundamental problem is this: that most of the means of communication are owned or influenced by the very rich."

George Monbiot correctly identifies the fundamental fact, as to why we are not living in true democracies.

If you have a tiny, self-interested clique, that controls and manipulates all mass communication, they are effectively controlling the thinking and awareness of people. All very rich people have far more in common, than they have with 99% of humanity. George Soros has far more in common with Elon Musk, than both of them have with 99% of humanity.

As George points out, addressing the climate crisis is relatively straight forward. When Greta Thunberg was asked, early on in her school strike for climate, why didn't she become a climate scientist, and solve the climate crisis, she intelligently responded, that the solution to the climate crisis was known over 30 years ago.

The only reason the known solutions have not been applied, is because it is not in the vested and personal interests of the richest people in the world, to implement those solutions. They only want techno-fixes, which allows them to have their cake and eat it.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1/4🧵 The top 1% of the richest, especially the top 0.1%, are super-emitters, who individually have greater emissions, than the bottom 66% of humanity. Therefore, they self-evidently have a personal vested interest, in not seeing personal emissions restricted.

That is obvious to anyone, not suffering billionaire brain syndrome, or billionaire sycophancy.

It follows, that as a demographic, the very rich, have got a common interest, in maintaining their high emissions lifestyles. In other words, that this demographic, effectively controls everything, in a manipulative way, the thinking and mass communication of 99% of humanity, who don't have their interests, it is a very dangerous and anti-democratic situation. By its very nature, no one in the bottom 99% has the personal emissions of someone in the top 1%.

The top 1%, has for this very reason, managed to convince most people, that it is humanity driving the climate crisis, not the top 1% (really the top 0.1%). Because they control all mass communication, and so what people think.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
2/4

I want to provide some general commentary on COP30, climate action generally, and this latest assessment, saying we're on track for 2.6C warming by the end of the century. It is most useful, in illustrating that political talk of limiting warming to 1.5C with current policy, is rhetorical hogwash.

However, I do not find, these end of the century projections, very realistic. Firstly, because they are far too conservative and optimistic. But most importantly, because they fail to understand the dynamics, and engage in the fantasy, that our civilization will remain stable, just struggling a bit, in the face of this level of warming, and recklessness.

I have taken issue before. Repeatedly, optimists will claim there is no scientific evidence that the climate and ecological crisis could collapse our civilization. There's only no evidence, because there has never been a proper scientific study of the stability of our civilization, in the face of mounting climate catastrophe. Most threats have never been evaluated, or even thought of. Do I really need to reference the study, the supports what I say, because I have referenced it countless times.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵 Projections of end of century warming, at totally unrealistic, because as a civilization, we will never get to the end of the century, if we stay on the business as usual, BaU, trajectory. Most likely, what would happen, is warming would increase. It and other ecological impacts, would be catastrophic to our societies, precipitating some sort of collapse, economic, financial and political, leading to rapid drop in emissions, as the economy as it is, ceases to exist.

When I say collapse, I am not saying what this will be, as it could take many forms, and I am not a clairvoyant. It may at one end of the spectrum, be a deep rot of BaU, making it impossible, and be a crumbling of our societies and economy.

Maybe people, governments could be shocked into seeing sense, and belatedly do what we should have done decades ago. But this would be difficult as organization falls to bits.

Or it could be a more spectacular and sudden collapse. I am not saying there are only 3 scenarios, as there are an almost infinite number of possible scenario.

However, the most unlikely scenario, is we just soldier on to 2.6C of warming, coping with the catastrophic changes this will create, continuing to burn fossil fuels.
2/

"Missing 1.5C climate target is a moral failure, UN chief tells Cop30 summit"

@antonioguterres is correct, but unfortunately the rest of the article descends into the same, empty rhetoric, which fails to recognize the real reason for the failure.

1/🧵theguardian.com/environment/20… The core problem is very simple, all governments, including those making hopeful noises, are primarily focused on the pursuit of economic growth, which hopelessly compromises them, as this agenda is mired in fossil fuel use.
2/