This chap thinks that offshore wind farms grow like seaweed from the seafloor, and that their roots burrow massive trenches across the sea floor all the way to the coast, where they bud into substations to connect to the Grid. Wind is free, you see.

Bonkers. Utterly nuts.

https://twitter.com/haroldthimbleby/status/1952340770830033092

There's a lot of it about. I get dozens of replies like this a day from people, some claiming academic expertise, who are strongly convinced that they know that wind is free, but have never looked at the very simple arithmetic.

I don't think it is possible to overstate the profound unreality that dominates in SW1.

Even mainstream commentators are discussing the collapse of the established parties, the economic recession that has merely yet to be inaugurated, deindustrialisation, a deep crisis of values across the public realm, an immigration crisis that cannot be stemmed, prices out of control, even blandified high streets are disintegrating, and the risk of war...

Yet here is this plonker who believes that society and the entire economy can be reorganised, and the fact of policy failure can be washed away by glib, elongated gaslighting verbiage.

I went to extremely crappy schools. But I at least learned what the antecedents to the French and Russian revolutions were. Political correctness had already dissolved the English civil wars from the curriculum, but I'm pretty sure there are some lessons in that too. Perhaps Miliband and co went to even worse schools, but cannot think it possible that they are mistaken.

I'm not talking about £300 sparking revolutions here. I am talking about the catastrophic indifference to others epitomised by such idiot zealots that believe elections are mere formalities and a sideshow to coronations, whose agendas are set by higher courts.

I get called a "denier" and "big oil funded" -- neither of which is true. My fundamental question has always been: what kind of world do adherents to green ideology want to create and on what basis do they assume legitimacy for their projects? For those who are preoccupied by "The Science"...

If you can't interrogate ideology, you don't know what science says. And that is because you don't know what you've told it or asked it.

Far from demonstrating "extreme weather", this report shows that there are milder winters, fewer frosts and less snow. It unsafely attempts to link floods to climate change, but even the IPCC reminds us that floods are not a meteorological phenomenon, and it is difficult to find any trends for attribution. "Hotter days" in the MO's metric can mean merely mild winter days, not the "lethal heat" that Guardian headlines will scream about. And on which point, the actually hotter days are merely free holiday weather, despite attempts to link them to "excess summer deaths", which fail as a climate change metric in multiple ways: the summer months see a much lower death rate; heatwave mortality was vastly higher in the past; only extremely vulnerable people are affected (who deserve better care); the death rate has fallen dramatically.

There is no climate crisis, despite the MO's desire to find it. This is an especially silly chart. It seems to show how many days per year the temperature anomaly exceeds various temperatures. But it doesn't discriminate between summer and winter.

Without the support of about half a dozen billionaire philanthropists, there would be no green movement, no climate change agenda.

These jokers admit it.

They plead poverty, but nearly all of UK, European and global "civil society" has been bought by their funders.

https://twitter.com/_wearepossible/status/1942568552583643397

"Possible", as they are now styled, were PKA 10:10 -- and they were created to appear as a "grassroots" green organisation, to support the UK government's policy agenda.

But it all went wrong with some hideous -- and extremely expensive -- TV adverts.

The Green Blob is recycling its "air pollution" proxy battle of the climate war today with this "new" report from the @RCPhysicians. It claims that air pollution kills 500 people a week and costs the economy £500 million a week.

It's bullshit.

theguardian.com/environment/20… The fake scientists use exactly the same statistical sleight-of-hand as earlier reports to support a political agenda.

Read the three parts of my @ClimateDebateUK / @Togetherdec analysis of the fake science here.

climatedebate.co.uk/toxic-air/

We know this, and we've known it for a long time.

Many knew that this was the point of the green agenda, before even climate change turned up as the problem that the solution was looking for.

What we need from politicians is a deeper explanation of green politics and action to counter it:

* How was this toxic ideology able to capture so many western institutions and political centres?

* How will the party address its own role in expanding that ideological project? Will it boot out the Gummers and Goldsmiths?

* What options will exist to overcome the legacies of its own actions and the following government? Degrowth was the core of the green ideological project since the 1960s.

Abundance was anathema to environmentalism (and still is), because green ideology believes that an economy is a subset of an ecology, and is thus a zero-sum game. That is why billionaires were drawn to it.

Until Copenhagen in 2009, the main hope of COP climate talks was a one-size-fits-all emissions-reduction policy. At Paris in 2015, that was finally abandoned, and emphasis moved to making local government, not national, the main weapon of climate policy. How it's going...

https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1918323083305275735

The green blob realised that national governments were unable to pass draconian legislation to change society.

But local politics was in such a sorry state that it would be easier to capture by small numbers of activists.

Hi @Ed_Miliband. Look how much UK gas prices have fallen since the April energy price cap was introduced. From £1.42/therm to 89p. That's a 37% decrease.

Will the Jul-October price cap be lowered, and when it is, will you explain that this is because of "global gas prices"? @Ed_Miliband Here's the 10-year view.

We should be seeing lower bills, right?

I don't.

And I don't think urging other countries to war at our expense is any definition of "standing with" worth defending.

Hundreds of thousands are now dead because of "standing with". Hundreds of thousands more are now fatherless, sonless, widowed...

You make a claim on behalf of "Britain" that you have never tested, and which your Prime Ministers could not even deliver for us. Do you stand with people who are now scattered in bits across eastern Ukraine? How does one "stand with" people who lay beneath the ground? How does one express "solidarity" with young men snatched from the streets to be forced to the front line against their will?

Did you ever wonder how David Miliband, who oversaw the development of the Climate Change Act (and consequently Net Zero) landed a job worth a $million a year as a director of a charity?

Wonder no more...


Those are just *some* of the grants made by the government to the charity now directed by the former government minister.

He's worth every penny of that million bucks a year, as far as his extremely-well paid colleagues and appointers are concerned.

Nasty morons, Liberal Democrats, who are neither liberal nor democratic.

https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1890519555459674222

They're like mini-milibands. They don't know how human language and communication work.

They are only able to invent stories about their political counterparts, to smear them. But they have no capacity for reason of their own.

BBC Media Action -- claims that "a free press is essential to freedom and democracy".

But when I revealed that @bbcmediaaction was working on behalf of dodgy billionaires and governments, to enforce particular political agendas they blocked me. @bbcmediaaction Here is the thread that offended them...

https://x.com/clim8resistance/status/1590053662558392322

I'd call Gill Tavner a liar, but she's mainly just ignorant.

Children were deliberately targeted by the green movement at large, and their anxieties were deliberately provoked precisely to make them adherents of green ideology.

Green *wanted* children to panic.

More >>

https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1886898057427493182

Here's my video explaining Why There is No Climate Crisis (and why people believe that there is). If you've seen it before, move to the 17 minute mark.

There you will see the late Rajendra Pachauri talking about "sensitising the young" to climate alarmism.

I don't think Dale Vince really understands how the green movement was conceived, founded, and pushed to the top of national and global political agendas.

Hint: it wasn't people power.

https://twitter.com/DaleVince/status/1884141863931895959

Here's another hint...

No it isn't.

Nuclear research of all kinds has been side-lined, including by institutional science, since long before you were last in office.

Meanwhile, subsidies to wind and solar scams alone are now hitting £10bn per year, and environmental taxes are £50 bn/year.

https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1879928797748945390

The budget for fusion research just got amped in the UK, but by a mere £200 million/year.

There are windfarms that earn greater subsidies.

edie.net/uk-government-…

Many interesting comments from @DaleVince in this Telegraph piece. But this one struck me...

"There’s always been a funding gap between the two main parties and I wanted to level the playing field… I felt it essential to do all that I could to help Labour win the last election."

telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/1… @DaleVince As with many of Dale Vince's claims that involve numbers, an inspection of the data reveals the opposite case. Between 2013-22 inclusive, the "funding gap" was in Labour's favour in all but one year.

This was very well known and understood in the decade before last, when exactly this phenomenon occurred with solar PV dumping undermined US and European manufacturers.

There is no need to prance around in front of infographics to explain European deindustrialisation. The fact is that UK/EU policies created a market for these products while undermining domestic manufacturers.

"Oh wow!", said the green lobby. "Look how cheap solar power is getting! Isn't China amazing!" They said we needed stronger climate targets to be imposed sooner.

And the fact is that Sky News took it upon itself to abandon proper criticism of that policy agenda, to become an advocate for green policies. It even had a daily climate news show. It committed itself to becoming a political campaigning organisation, to lead its audience towards supporting climate policies.

This PowerPoint-contemporary dance performance tells the story that critics were pointing out two decades ago. No. It's not a perfect storm, Ed.

Perfect storms are unpredictable. Nobody knows quite how and when the meteorological forces will align and multiply.

Many people were warning of this outcome. Why did Sky news prefer instead to produce propaganda?

https://x.com/EdConwaySky/status/1864981442628825450

All these Tories coming out against Miliband...

ENOUGH!

Explain how YOUR PARTY got to the same point before you criticise the party whose policies are effectively continuity Boris Johnson.

Or, STFU and fade into the background of history, as you deserve.

https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1858428692516528634

Where were you when Boris Johnson banned petrol & diesel cars?

Where were you when Boris Johnson banned the domestic gas central heating boiler?

Why did Britain turn its back on nuclear power?

Because its governments caved into the green lobby's propaganda.

Who funds Sam Dumitriu's research?

The green lobby.

It is not about nuclear power.

It's about making it easier for rent seekers.

https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1856264087405048149

Who funds Britain Remade?

1. The Quadrature Foundation, which gave a £4 million donation to the Labour Party, and from where the government's new Climate Envoy, Rachel Kyte emerged.

This is daft, @MichaelLCrick.

Quadrature Climate Foundation's (QCF) grants to pro-Net Zero lobbying organisations VASTLY exceeds even Quadrature's alleged holdings in companies that have hydrocarbon energy interests.

It would make no sense whatsoever to fund climate lobbying organisations with more than a $billlion, as QCF has, for the sake of an alleged interest in hydrocarbon companies worth $170 million.

The question you should be asking is about the $billion of pro-Net Zero lobbying and its influence over UK energy policy.

There is a lot more to say on QCF's grantees, including how they create conspiracy theories about the funding of lobbying organisations and donations to political parties. Here is one example showing how fake philanthropic foundations like Quadrature spend VAST amounts of money on pro-Net Zero lobbying, and how there is ZERO evidence of the contrary -- fossil fuel interests funding anti Net Zero lobbying.

In fact, QCF grantees, InfluenceMap were so bereft of evidence linking fossil fuel interests to anti-climate lobbying that they had to count PRO climate lobbying as ANTI climate lobbying.

benpile.substack.com/p/the-monolith…

"Possible" needed the money because they destroyed their own image when they were called 10:10, and their adverts depicting the executions of children and other climate apostates led to their backers pulling out.

But they were outsourced PR for govt. Always were.

https://twitter.com/CharlotteCGill/status/1829791581106327877

These are the adverts from 2009...