The Green Blob Won’t Take This Lying Down
According to the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) via a BBC article, the “Government [is] not taking climate seriously”. The CCC’s 2025 ‘Progress in adapting to climate change‘ report, published at the end of last month, highlights a lack of preparedness for our imminent doom. We might find it surprising that the view from the Green Blob end of the debate about climate and energy policy is that Ed Miliband is asleep at the wheel. And with interventions such as the CCC’s, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero might well be asking who is friends are. Meanwhile, of course, the voting public seem to have signalled that they do not share the CCC’s preoccupations.
The CCC’s report is a litany of screeches about Britain’s vulnerabilities. “Over half of England’s top quality agricultural land is at risk of flooding,” it claims. “6.3 million properties in England are in areas at risk of flooding”; “Over a third of railway and road kilometres are currently at flood risk”; “Heat-related deaths… could rise several times over to exceed 10,000 in an average year by 2050”; “Unchecked climate change could impact UK economic output by up to 7% of GDP by 2050”. But these highlights, as terrifying as they sound, are of course, largely bunk, based on junk science, worst-case scenarios and dodgy computer simulations.
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.
It’s not just green issues. Reform will have powerful enemies in every council on all challenges. Not just the Labour survivors but the public sector unions and, probably, the majority of officers whose jobs and/or perks could be affected. I wish them the best of luck. They have to win.
I suspect that there’d be considerably less support for climate ‘action’ if opinion polls didn’t lump ‘climate change’ together with ‘the environment’. After all, there must be quite a lot of people who are concerned about for example damaged rivers, air pollution, fly-tipping, excessive noise etc. but who don’t support climate ‘action’.
A very good point.
Me for instance.
That’s why they do lump them together. I am still amazed that when I tell people I’m a complete climate sceptic, they seem to think I don’t care about plastic in oceans, or loss of habitat.
Plastic in oceans is a completely made-up crisis. Have you no idea of scale?
On the rest, yes I care for my environment. I will politely chase down people, even when they’re in their cars, to hand them back their rubbish. I hate to see waterways chock full of plasterboard, bricks, lumps of cement, plastic bags. I don’t like it when a neighbour sits huddled outside his rent under a blanket soaking himself in weed smoke. I don’t like it when the MOT tester at the local garage gets hit and run by a gang because he dared to fail their van for a third time. I don’t like it when my brilliantly self-converted campervan gets stolen.
I count all these things as my environment. It’s one of the reasons I emigrated to a part of France where most people still seem to define environment as the space they actually live in, as opposed to some arbitrary, unprovable, theoretical definition dreamed up in the minds of wonks and crooks.
Plastic bottles in the ocean according the Patrick Moore (ex Greenpeace) make an excellent environment for lots of sea creatures.
Micro plastics that reportedly are now turning up even in human babies bodies.. ? Who cares hey…?
I’ve yet to see a road being blocked by a pink haired middle class lesbian with piercings shrieking at me about that …
Microplastics if ingested via the mouth transit the gastrointestinal-intestinal tract and are excreted, being too large to cross the gut wall into the blood capillaries.
If breathed in, they will be expelled from the airways by coughs and sneezes or migrate into the œsophagus trapped in mucus then into the gut – just like other microparticle aka dust and the other garbage from animals and plants and nature that drift about in the air.
Microplastics is the next phase of the war on plastics, part of the war on fossil fuels, now that big plastics – bags, packaging, straws, cups, etc – are almost eradicated.
Plastic us inert, non-toxic, non-corrosive, non-reactive unlike lots of other junk in our environment.
I personally have no problem with initiatives to cut down plastic use but only because petrochemicals are a finite resource although I suspect the reserves are more than the climate alarmists would have us believe.
However, I’m also a firm believer in “unintended/unexpected consequences” which seem to regularly pop-up.
Absolutely our council (Central Bedfordshire) has just introduced (as usual without consulting the tax payers) a booking system for the tidy tip (formerly known as the council dump). This of course will lead to more fly tipping not less. Even our esteemed MP was in one of the committees that waved it through although he’s trying to deny any blame! I have written to complain and sent off a FOI request asking about the Cost/Benefit analysis and received a flimsy response with absolutely no reference to such an analysis! I’m still waiting a further response to my subsequent repost.
We’ve lost several local tips around Cheshire East (useless and near bankrupt) which has the consequence that people are recycling less, cramming more into the black bins. In addition, the residents on the road to the remaining single tip aren’t too pleased about cars queuing up outside their house pumping noxious fumes into their houses. And yes, fly tipping has increased.
“The Environment” is the Amazon Rainforests, Bonobo Apes in the Congo, Pacific turtles’ nostrils being assaulted by plastic straws, whales (except the ones killed by off-shore windmills), and in fact anything Mankind does to get a better life.
Damaged rivers? Mustn’t have those – better Humans suffer and die than “damage” rivers.
Environment, being what is around us, clean streets, no potholes, garbage collected regularly, etc is of no concern to Environmentalists and their religion and its new cult Climatism.
The IPCC has recently said that “Worst Case Scenario’s” from their climate models are “very unlikely to occur”. —-Looks like someone forgot to tell our Political Class of Phony Planet Savers as we continue to fritter billions away on this pseudo scientific fraud. —-Carbon Capture and Blocking the Sun are just two of the more recent absurd Government ideas that are pushing millions into energy poverty as this rubbish is all paid for via our energy bills.
It never was about the climate. See the TBI paper. It’s all about control. Covid was a dry run.
I seem to remember some of the “covid experts” admitting that the government only ever asked them for absolute worst case scenarios, not the most likely case. I think that came out in a Spectator interview.
Every doom and gloom ‘we are all going to die’ report will be found to be based on RCP8.5 – a scenario so idiotic that for it to come true every home would need to keep braziers of coal and oil burning 24 hours a day. A few honest scientists in the climate science fiction industry have have admitted it is rubbish and so therefore is every paper based on it.
They have also stated there is no evidence to support increased incidence in extreme weather, floods or droughts.
Far from game over yet, but the green blob will be rattled – Reform votes are votes against the real risk of energy-collapse, not votes for the fake risks of climate claptrap.
They’ve been rumbled.
Roads and railways COULD be flooded.
Economic activity COULD shrink.
Heat related deaths (whatever they are) COULD rise.
And these people COULD just stop making crap up to scare people.
But will it happen? Pretty unlikely.
Heavy rain COULD clean roads and railways and the runoff provide water for drought ridden fields.
Economic activity COULD grow.
Cold related deaths COULD fall.
I don’t trust anyone or any organisation that only presents the ‘worst case’ without any ‘best case’ scenarios.
Exactly – it’s all marketing for *something* they want… the question, as ever, is ‘what do they really want?’
I think the reality of being ‘let go’ and then having to find another job or live off bennies will soon frighten all but those Greens still living off their families.
I hope you’re right, but I fear you’re not.
It may frighten them – but the Unions will never allow such redundancies. The declaration that there is no longer a role for a DEI or Climate Change policy bod ie the position is redundant won’t allow for the people who occupy those jobs to be ‘let go’. The councils will be required to see if these troublemakers can be re-deployed elsewhere in the bureaucracy.
Even a strike which is directly severely risking people’s health (the bin strike in Birmingham) is backed by the union. If they deny the strike is risking people’s health then bin collections clearly don’t prevent harm to the public.
Can’t wait for the Ben Goldtwats of the world to double down on their absurdities. Let them have all the rope they want.
Nobody has been shut out of democratic contest in Germany so far.
As parting shot, Nancy “Kampf gegen Rechts!” Faeser has declared that the AfD is certainly right-wing extremist instead of just probably right-wing extremist based on a secret dossier¹ compiled by the Federal Agency for Protection of the Constitution and officially justifed by stating that the claim that German people exists as ethnic group indepdenent of executive fiats of the FRG authorities would be an attack on human dignity². Minus a lot of noisy news and more rumours of more harassment of people working for the German state in case they’re AfD members, this doesn’t have any real-world effect. Not the least because nobody knows what certainly right-wing extremist actually means beyond being an expression of strong disapproval.
¹ Offically kept secret to protect the sources. For people familiar with the German political circus, this easily decodes to protect all the paid BfV moles in the AfD who really provided or provoked the supposedly juicy quotes.
² As German, I’m very much inclined to consider the existency of Nancy Faeser an attack on human dignity.
In my life of a few decades, I’ve met a handful of instances in which an individual develops significant mental health problems of a delusional nature, some of these being at work leading to retirement of senior staff on health grounds. In all these cases, the people concerned seem to have had some kind of “nervous breakdown”. It was tempting and conventional to simplistically attribute the breakdown to “work stress”. Whether this was justified or not, they all developed progressively more exaggerated perception of the importance and correctness of their work and of themselves individually, which developed into either into paranoia (our competitors have got spies in our own organisation), or grandiose, omniscient, omnipotent euphoria (our product is a world-beating innovation and we shall become billionaires). This led to significant (and in a couple of cases, suicidal) disruption of the organisation, especially when the organisation had shared the delusions rather than quarantining the developing insanity into one person. The organisation, or at least the project, then came crashing down. I guess some autocratic regimes have exhibited a similar fate. I can’t help worrying wondering if this “green blob” phenomenon is working similarly: just before it all crashes, its leaders develop… Read more »
I was told of a case, several decades ago where a Council manager suffered so much stress that he was unable to progress his casework. This came to light when he piled all the paperwork into a heap in the car park and set light to it. It took years to reconstruct the cases for action.
As I get older I become more interested in cases where, rather than an individual, an entire team, group, organisation, ministry, national regime or international organisation come to share a system of values which, with hindsight, were completely irrational, immoral and, arguably illegal. The psychological phenomenon goes beyond dealing with one person’s mental disorder (loss of contact with reality), beyond mere “groupthink”, beyond fear of expressing dissent from the values of one’s organisation (be it company, NGO, parliament, cabinet or UN committee) lest one be defenestrated. There comes a point at which the entire organisation comes collectively acquires a bizarre dogma, and individual within in come to believe passionately in the dogma of that organisation and support it to the death, be it there own or that of the organisation. I’m sure historians and psychologists have already developed theories about this phenomenon. It would be great to see some results which integrate all scales of delusion, from an individual with paranoid delusions, though group hysteria (such as recurrent epidemics of hysteria among predominantly rural Malayan, cults such as the Jonestown mass suicide, right through to mass killings in Germany, Cambodia and China. I guess a common thread is the way… Read more »
I think the organisation you refer to is known as “government” isn’t it?
That certainly appears to be the case to me.
Someone on the DS a little while ago mentioned the Abilene paradox. I looked it up: “The Abilene paradox On a scorching summer afternoon in a quiet Texas town, the Johnson family was lounging lazily on their shaded porch. The sun hung high, and a warm breeze rustled the dry leaves. Mr. Johnson leaned back in his rocking chair, fanning himself with an old magazine, while Mrs. Johnson sipped her iced tea. Their daughter, Emily, was scrolling through her phone, and their son, Jacob, was absentmindedly tossing a ball against the porch railing. The silence was comfortable until Mr. Johnson, in an attempt to break the quiet, suddenly said, “You know, maybe we should all take a drive to Abilene for dinner.” Mrs. Johnson paused, a slight frown on her face. Abilene was nearly 50 miles away, a long, dusty drive under the brutal sun. But she didn’t want to seem dismissive or like a spoil-sport. So, she smiled weakly and said, “Sure, if that’s what you all want.” Emily looked up from her phone. She didn’t particularly want to leave her cool spot on the porch, but seeing her parents agreeing, she didn’t want to be the one to… Read more »
Prophets of doom have been with us in many cultures going back thousands of years. Their message is always the same. We have greatly sinned. We need to repent of our sins, and atone for our sins by donning on sack cloth and ashes (or whatever) or the gods / science or something will punish us for our sins. Pretty much the Green agenda – it is an anti progress movement, driven by fear of the new.
And the biggest sin is thinking we are perfect.
Maybe we are, or at least ‘right in this case’, but it’s worth discussing it with others, which can be an arduous persuit if they are just as stubborn as us. 🙂
That why studying the basic Sciences and Ancient Greek Philosophy, where the current political differences are yet to be to formed, helps with objectiveness.
“All governments have taken climate change far too seriously, at our expense, for far too long.”
Well said couldn’t agree more.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the mainstream media were to ask this obvious question of the climate hysterics, “What exactly is your evidence for your purported climate emergency?” And then go on and examine critically what they are told. It never seems to happen.
Everything carries a risk – it is degree of risk that is important, something the Climatrons never quantify. Also the word “could” is worn out with doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Actuaries who’s job risk is, seem quite content to insure things and banks lend money in areas “at risk” or where “could” is evident.
“Up to” has always been a great marketing term as it can cover every number up to that, including a big fat zero.