How the Climate Agenda Weaponises Science to Erode Democracy
A petition started last year on Parliament’s website calls on MPs to “Repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and Net Zero targets”. Now exceeding 10,000 signatures, the petition has had a response from the Government. The text of the petition is identical to an earlier version that was submitted in the previous Parliamentary term but closed because of the General Election. That petition also received a response from the then Government, as we reported here. However, there are some revealing differences in the replies given by the respective administrations.
If there is a shortcoming in the petition, it is that it allows the Government to hide its ideological agenda behind scientific authority. This is an ongoing problem with criticisms of the green agenda broadly, because arguments that rest on scientific authority are often alienating, and seemingly mirror the excesses of the green agenda’s apparent deference to technocrats. The petition states, not inaccurately, that “many hundreds of scientists up to the highest Nobel Laureate level have jointly declared ‘There is no climate emergency’”. This is a reference to Clintel’s petition of 1,900 experts. (Listen to my podcast with Clintel’s co-founder, Marcel Crock here.) But this is then undermined.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The entire climate agenda is basically a stinking pile of conjectures.
There is no scientific knowledge behind any of it and by that I mean knowledge that allows you to make accurate verifiable predictions.
These people haven’t made a single accurate prediction in all these decades. Not one.
All you hear is could, may, might.
It’s’ the biggest con ever.
And the worst part is seeing all the lemmings about, repeating how the climate is changing when all they can observe is the same weather we have always had. Like a bunch of hypnotised zombies.
Sure – and they have been very successful in peddling the snake oil, rather more successful than we have been in countering it
Who really wants this fear agenda to succeed?
Why?
How do we get the population at large to realise that they are being conned?
The UK has swallowed more of this befuddling nonsense than almost every other country in the world – why?
My prediction is that at present rates of ‘progress’ Starmer will have to rein Miliband in, but even then the lunatic agenda will still be lying there just beneath the surface, poisoning every debate and investment decision
We need the whole subject to evaporate, just like the embarrassing ‘Covid pandemic’ (i.e. 2020 flu season) has evaporated
To me it looks as if it’s actually a UK establishment project. The UK isn’t swallowing it, it’s the one making it all up and trying to foist it on the entire world.
The only way to do this is to elect a parliament that is prepared to repeal all the legislation used by Blair to suborn the constitution including the climate legislation and that which handed over responsibility to organisations that have no contact with the electorate. And of course everything that the subsequent governments did that followed on from the Blair era.
Yes, a parliament which will enact ‘a bonfire of the quangos’.
Oh. We thought we did that already.
None of them are trustworthy.
Has Reform pledged this?
We now live in a Scientific Dictatorship where truth is simply declared. Governments fund all of the climate change science, and if it doesn’t come up with the desired results that give the excuse for the climate change policies then that funding will no longer be forthcoming. The whole thing is basically a Climate Coup. —-The UN really acts on behalf of the Globalist Groups and International Banking. Politicians are then given their orders and the just do as they are told because the bankers have total control over all debt and the Money Creation. —-The UN Agenda 2030 is promoted as a solution to everything from poverty to global warming, but is really just a means to empower global government that will enforce Totalitarian Socialism and Big Corporation control of absolutely everything. —-Most ordinary people think that all that is required to save the planet is for coal oil and gas to be replaced with wind and sun and all will tick along just as before. —-NO IT WON’T. There will have to be massive changes to our lifestyle and standard of living and we will have to consume much less of EVERYTHING. If we covered 10% of the… Read more »
And many are happy it is so. My brother bemoans Trump’s “revisionist science” taking charge.
But of course it is the very nature of science proper to be “revisionist” – “Nullius in verba” and all that. The word itself, though, implies there is a correct political doctrine, or a correct ideological version of history, which is only challenged by the ideologically or politically impure.
Once more unto the breach, Sir Ben Pile. But sadly, too much time and energy expended arguing on planet savers’ and climate claptrappers’ self-appointed high ground.
To this physical scientist steeped in Feynman, Popper and Bronowski, the climate heist self-evidently doesn’t cut the basic tenets of science that have stood the test of time…
…It can’t be tested by experiment (Feynman)
…It isn’t refutable (Popper)
…It quashes debate (Bronowski – “Students are not here to worship but to question”)
“That’s all there is to it.” (Feynman again). Throw at it Boenhoeffer on conformity, cupidity and stupidity, and chuck the whole climate con in the dustbin of scientific history, where once and for all it belongs.
Ofcourse this was never about science from the very start. It is “Official Science” in support of the Political Agenda that emanates from the UN/WEF and International Banks called “Sustainable Development”
A very sound analysis. However, one point is overlooked. I don’t think it really matters how a petition is worded: this present government is controlled by ideologues who actually have no interest in debate or identifying the truth. Ideologues do not have “ideas” but are controlled by them. Led by the fanatic, mad Miliband, the “ideas” control what he does. Although he doesn’t realise it, he is in the same category as Hamas whose single overarching idea is the destruction of Isreal, or Oliver Cromwell who required Puritanism everywhere. No matter how it is phrased, any petition to repeal the climate act will be dismissed without consideration. A deep change is required.
It is a natural mistake to argue with activists about the ‘facts’. Resistance to their opinions is seen as validating their certainty rather than challenging it, for their opinions are not inspired by ‘facts’ but matters of belief.
Perhaps it would be more effective to confront their beliefs by holding ‘facts’ in reserve but primarily talk about ‘the Climate Con’, ‘the COVID Con’, ‘the Gender Con’, thus ‘renaming’ the activists concerns?
Exactly. Prosecute the debate on our terms, not theirs (except, of course, built into the climate con is true climate believers’ refusal to openly debate their self-settled voodoo-science).
Yes – actually they have themselves given us a neat shorthand for all the climate stuff – namely “Net Zero”. We should always call it that, never “global warming” or “climate change” or “climate crisis” or anything else. “The Net Zero scam” sounds best to me.
So what if the UK achieves Net Zero? This would be thanks? to the shallow windy North Sea, and a large number of inter connectors for back-up. How does this inspire the vast majority of other countries that don’t have those things?
Not to mention de-industrialisation, and the fact that the UK emits just 1%.
We know about the IPCC retrospectively adjusting their weather datasets, but where does the Grand Solar Minimum (mini ice age) come into all of this?
The grand solar minimum is starting to arrive, reducing solar activity and increasing cold showing up worldwide not just in local winter months.
This is not science, but religious dogma. In the same way that in the past prophets called people to amend the error of their ways and atone for their sins with donning sack cloth and ashes and a diet of locusts. Otherwise the gods will punish them with floods, droughts and famine. The climate cults repeat this mantra. Except the new god is not a deity up in the sky but “The Science”.
Nah. Locusts and wild honey as consumed by John the Baptist were mentioned as astonishing delicacies. There he is apparently living rough yet eating like a Roman overlord. Probably also meant to be controversial – is locust Kosher or not?
The only justification for Net Zero that makes any kind of sense to me is related to security of supply: no more reliance on fossil fuels, most of which are imported, and which may get very expensive during war times.
Oops, have I suddenly been converted? No, because there is no need to do it in such a rush, lets take 200 years to achieve it, or however long it takes to do without trashing the economy.
True, its not like we are short of coal. Shame the virtue signallers were happy to blow up coal power stations.
I wrote to my Liberal Democrat MP to implore her not to vote for the CAN bill, citing all of the rejection of climate science I have accumulated from these pages and her response was:- Thanks for getting in touch to highlight your concerns about the Climate and Nature Bill which is being promoted in this Parliament by my colleague Dr Roz Savage MP. After a passionate second reading debate on January 24th, the bill has been adjourned, but only after Roz forced Labour ministers who were trying to defeat the bill to make significant concessions to adopt many of its key provisions. I’ve long believed that it is high time the climate emergency was actually treated as an emergency. The recent extreme weather and wildfires in America just underscore the need for governments to step up. At last year’s election, the Liberal Democrats were the only major party with a detailed plan for Britain to take the lead on climate and nature. We have long argued for ambitious, legally binding international targets to protect biodiversity and reduce dangerous emissions. Backed by well over a hundred MPs from all parties and campaigners across the country, the Climate and Nature… Read more »
They never address issues such as:
How does building 1.5 million new houses help nature or the environment?
How does building many square miles of solar panels help nature or the environment?
How does building hundreds of gigantic offshore wind turbines benefit nature, the marine ecology or environment?
What is the impact of the vast amounts of concrete, steel, aluminium, tarmac and other materials, including their extraction, refining, manufacture and transport (including CO2 production – as their major concern) in building all of the above, provision of utilities, thousands of miles of cables, thousands of gigantic pylons and many other considerations, including building on flood plains.
I may be wrong, but I think houses, roads, solar farm and wind farms (onshore or offshore) are not good for nature, nor the environment, so if they want additional focus on nature (as per the Bills name) then consider all aspects of nature.
Here is what Edenhoffer, a lead author at the IPCC said about 10 years ago “One has to free oneself from the illusion that climate policies are environmental policies anymore. We redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy”—-It isn’t about the environment. The environment and the climate is just the excuse for the eco socialism.
The blueprint for technocratic control of humanity was set out around a hundred years ago in the wake of the Great War. The basic premise was that unbridled individualism and the pursuit of private profit had led to overproduction in the form of war materiel, which then led to the catastrophe of the first global war. The solution was the eventual takeover of government by a technocratic elite class, on a global scale, leading to a New World Order. This was overwhelmingly a British project, traceable in its origins back to Malthus and Darwin. The central idea was that in the absence of a benign creation directed by God, it was humanity’s duty to seize the reins of evolution by technological means. Hence the close association of technocracy with eugenics and transhumanism. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and anyone with sufficient curiosity can read it for themselves. Its main public spokesman was H.G.Wells, and his ideas are set out in the following works (among others): Anticipations (1902) A Modern Utopia (1905) The Open Conspiracy (1933) The Shape of Things to Come (1933) The New World Order (1940) Don’t make the mistake of thinking Wells was just a purveyor of quaint… Read more »
According to Bjorn Lomborg, the EU is paying NGO’s with taxpayers money, to lobby the EU for more stringent Nut Zero Regs……a la USAID.
A wonderful explanation regarding the climate can be found on X. Professor Willie Soon, an astrophysicist with 31 years as a Professor at Harvard explains fossil fuels, CO2 in a way, that the dumbest among us (Labour gov’t) can understand the climate (change).💕💕💕💕💕
The climate crisis cult is fueled by your tax money. This money flows into NGOs and fake charities that push the ideology and agenda. Those pushing it all make good salaries and live good lifestyles that totally depend on maintaining this crisis. None of them are really interested in true science. The climate crisis will not end until this free money fueling it ends.
The IPCC is a global warming activist organisation whose founding document says that its function is to find the human cause of climate change in support of the UNFCCC. Who would honestly take seriously a group who can publish the summary of a report months before it can actually publish the report it purports to summarise? And as for the Met Office, Bank of England and OBR – none of them are noted for having a good track record for predictions.
Absolutely right, Ben. Well argued.
In fact, I think the right wording for that petition would simply have been “We consider that Parliament must revoke The Climate Change Act 2008 and related Net Zero targets”.
There is no point in arguing about facts with opponents who are not motivated by facts, but by feelings and a desire to appear virtuous. This is the key thing that Donald Trump has realised, that has enabled him to make such headway in the United States.