Telegraph Publishes Fake Claims From XR Supporter
By Paul Homewood
The Telegraph printed this letter from an XR supporter yesterday, containing some utterly absurd claims:
In particular these claims:
“The Government upped its subsidies to big oil to £2 billion this year while reducing subsidies to sustainable energy to £700,000”
Really? What subsidies to Big Oil? Last year, far from receiving subsidies, UK oil and gas producers paid £1.9bn in taxes:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production—2
As the government points out, North Sea oil and gas producers pay an effective rate of 40% corporation tax on all profits, which compares to a normal rate of 19% for other companies. In other words, Big Oil pays more than double the usual rate:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production—2
It is true that there has been a rebate on Petroleum Revenue Tax, amounting to £744 million last year. But this relates to decommissioning costs, which are deductible against taxes already paid on earlier profits.
As for renewable subsidies, laughingly put at just £700,000, the OBR tell us that they will cost £11.4bn this year (that is excluding CRC and Warm Home Discount):
https://obr.uk/efo/economic-fiscal-outlook-october-2018/
How the hell this pathetic letter got past the Telegraph letters editor beats me. It is one thing allowing controversial opinions to be aired, but quite another allowing blatantly incorrect “facts” to be published in support of them.
I can only assume the editor actually assumed they must be true. If so, the mass indoctrination of the public by the climate charlatans appears to be even more successful than I thought.
I have written a letter to the Telegraph, outlining the true facts. Whether this gets published, we will have to wait and see.
BTW – I suspect that the idiot Tom Hardy may be heavily involved in XR, and not just the member of the public implied in the letter.
If anybody has time to dig some more detail out, I would be grateful/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The UK has no fossil fuel subsidies.
“All science suggests.. all the children will die soon” Sheesh. All science does is experiments. Experiments speak, they say true or false to the hypothesis. I suggest Tom Hardy is lying. Extinction rebellion is a whole tissue of lies and fabrications.
Well time is relative. On a planetary scale (4 billion yrs) 200yrs is quite soon. So i guess all todays children will die within 200yrs, despite the progress of medical science. 😉
Well I warned you, if you dont pay me £100billion by midnight nobody’s gettiong out alive…
you have 2mins left!!!
How about this classic?
EXTINCTION REBELLION FOUNDER BLASTED FOR ‘BLIND HYPOCRISY’ AFTER 11,000-MILE FLIGHT FOR LUXURY HOLIDAY
Date: 13/10/19
https://www.thegwpf.com/extinction-rebellion-founder-blasted-for-blind-hypocrisy-after-11000-mile-flight-for-luxury-holiday/
Is there anybody running XR who is not on drugs or is not certifiable or who is not just plane stupid? As well as being a hypocrite of course?
“Gail Bradbrook has spent the past 18 years on the pay-roll of charities, NGOs and political ‘think-tanks’ (like the Blairite/New Labour IPPR), being funded by J. P. Morgan Chase (which happens to be the UN’s bank), BT, Shell, Microsoft, CISCO, Panasonic, Goldman Sachs, BAE Systems, NEON Communications (whose ‘Director of Global Sales’, Lord Anthony Tudor St John, is heavily invested in 5G technology and also sits as trustee of Citizens Online), IBM, Unilever, N. M. Rothschild & Sons… you name it: the whole ‘in the club’ of corporate funny-handshake hegemony – to give ‘independent advice’ to government and help develop government strategies, policies and to define their objectives.” https://www.vigiliae.org/dr-gail-marie-bradbrook-compassionate-revolutionary-for-hire-by-un-extinction/
“BTW – I suspect that the idiot Tom Hardy may be heavily involved in XR, and not just the member of the public implied in the letter.”
Whatever could have aroused your suspicion, Paul?
https://rebellion.earth/category/trials/page/2/
NB Islington is London N5
Could the Islington, London N5 Tom Hardy ….
…. be the Extinction Rebellion protester who boarded Aer Lingus plane at London City Airport and stopped it taking off?
From this video:
It seems to me that all of these climate cultists are either ignorant, stupid, liars our insane. Or all of these things.
They are never going to be brought out of their condition by argument or with facts and evidence.
These are lost people; I doubt they will ever return to normality; and in a sane world they would be sidelined and ignored, to be slapped down each time they have a hissy fit.
”Last October, I woke up one fine morning, switched on the radio, and heard that we had 12 years left.”
And the idiot believed it? What are we teaching our teachers if somebody supposedly bright enough to be let loose in our education system is taken in by such garbage?
Well-found, Joe.
Talk about a nonsensical idiot! It would be hard to find anyone more so than this Tom Hardy. Part of the write-up on him on the XR link you posted says: (“Why I became an activist”) – “Last October, I woke up one fine morning, switched on the radio, and heard that we had 12 years left. I had led a carefree life up until then, but the idea of being carefree was no longer a thing. I suddenly had images of my children’s generation being one that will witness the end of the world.
“I spent the week wondering why no one was discussing this on the news or in the newspapers.” And he advises people to ‘read the science’?? It says he is a ‘semi-retired teacher and academic writer’. OMG! What hope is there when there are teachers of his ilk in schools these days. If I still had children of school age, I would not allow them within a mile of such an imbecile.
I was proud that my children made such a ‘teacher’ cry. I’ve trained them well.
It is a fascinating web-site that Extinction Rebellion have created to justify their actions. Almost every aspect of their technical justifications has been demonstrated to be fake-science on this website and a few others – but it looks convincing to people who think that citing groups of “scientists” proves that it is true and never look behind a glossy graphic.
The press are becoming aware that they have created a monster; even BBC staff could not get into their offices as they are not “green enough”!. This movement will split into peaceful and violent groupings in the near future. To these people, violence will be fully justifiable to save the world.
Islington post codes actually start at N1.
It’s the same old dross, the BS arguments and the week minded assertion, in infantile accusation of ‘big oil subsidies’ (and the rest) and on a loop.
If that is the best they’ve got? Ah but then, advocated through the likes of global warming promotions at the beeb, horrorbin, the lav party and tories, UK institutions, academia and not least via a complicit greenwashed media.
Even the DT’s Juliet Samuel writing on Saturday’s DT (opinion pages) in some feeble retort to the revolting Extinction loonies, repeats some of the globull warbling mantras and until that ceases, there will be nothing doing. Ergo; arguing agin ’em but in the same paragraphs – maintaining the great green scam deceits. Good grief, it follows that, in some of the UK public’s minds the great green scam conjecture is still made and yet legitimised.
If you’re going to quell this green econmentalist revolt, it’s time the gloves were taken off, and very, very unfortunately there is: fat chance of that. What with, boris is still manically doing the great green dance – told to by his new love interest ( so like call me dave and sam cam) as are all of the clowns in the theatre of idiots – both houses of Westminster.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
From Mr Hardy’s Letter:
“If only people would read the science rather than relying on herd instinct.”
From Mr Hardy’s video on https://rebellion.earth/category/trials/page/2/
“Last October, I woke up one fine morning, switched on the radio, and heard that we had 12 years left. …. I spent the week wondering why no one was discussing this on the news … Then I found myself at Parliament Square with like-minded people, and I found some community and fellowship there, and then I found myself on the bridges. I have never been an activist and I’d usually just stay on the sidelines, but when the swarm happened, I swarmed as well, and I have never felt more right in my life.”
Happens here in the states, too. The media erroneously calls tax breaks “subsidies”, so they can say “look, fossil fuels receive subsidies, too.” But of course tax breaks aren’t subsidies-because subsides are “money given by the government to a company or individual…”. No one is giving you a thing with a tax break-the money was yours to begin with
I think there is a case for saying that different tax rates on competing items amounts to a subsidy. If say gas had 20% VAT but electricity 0%, that would be effectively a subsidy – the fact that the cash doesn’t go to the state and is then returned to the electricity company directly doesn’t alter the effect. The state makes one fuel cheaper using taxpayers money (foregoing rather than providing being the same thing cashflow-wise).
But that doesn’t happen in the UK. Alternative fuels are generally taxed identically but where there are differences in taxes, the Green fuels get the subsidy. Look at congestion charging for example.
Nope. Look at which way the money flows. Different tax rates just alter prices. Subsidy is the opposite of tax.
And here he is in June, along with Chris Packham, supporting XR’s call for the Natural History Museum to ‘cut any and all ties with the fossil fuel industry’:
https://rebellion.earth/2019/06/18/18-june-extinction-rebellion-meet-with-natural-history-museum-ahead-of-action/
PS: I wonder how many members of XR have cut any and all ties with the fossil fuel industry?
Don’t hold your breath, Robin! I’ve already had a run-in today with someone arguing that it is unreasonable to expect protestors to take a lead. I pointed out that if they genuinely believe there is a climate catastrophe impending and we must all stop emitting CO2 by 2025 then the best way of convincing us is by setting an example. [Somewhere there used to be a smiley of a character hitting his head on a brick wall. Consider it posted here!]
I have some sympathy with ‘protestors’ on this point. But I’m referring to ‘XR members’. It would be utter hypocrisy for any of them to demand that the Natural History Museum ‘cut any and all ties’ with the fossil fuel industry (e.g. by no longer using gas for central heating or operating any internal combustion engined vehicles) if they don’t do likewise.
I like the ‘if only people read the science’ bit. Every time a realist discusses the actual science with a thermageddonist the result is a huge win for the realist.
Then there’re the 500 scientists who wrote to the UN last month to say there’s no climate emergency. What about them Mr Hardy?
And +1 from me. I’ve read large amounts of the science in the last decade and have been a scientist myself nearly 40 years. Nothing much has been happening this century, despite a 10% rise in total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Claims of UK fossil fuel subsidies, levelised costs, social cost of carbon etc. – they are just accounting frauds to make ruinous renewables look worthwhile. As if it needed saying again.
“I can only assume the editor actually assumed they must be true.”
More likely,the editor knew, or had some idea of, these absurd claims being false, but chose to publish, to support the “good cause”.
Lies, damned lies and “Green” statistics are mendacious in that order, most-obviously re wind turbines’ “efficiency,” green-ness and costs.
Have these ‘read the science’ types even heard of photosynthesis? Vegetation wants more CO2 not less.
A teacher wakes up one morning, hears something on the radio and starts protesting. No wonder the education system is in trouble, producing the current crop of “sheep” students (no offence meant to sheep). Reminds me of the War of the Worlds broadcast by Orson Welles in New York, as if it were news, causing panic amongst the populus.
We’re doomed………..
Yes, he heard something on the news and immediately believes. He doesn’t actually investigate the science, the different views, the claims. He believes. Pathetic.
Well worth a read if you have access:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/are-we-heading-for-a-climate-apocalypse-not-again/
The is from the Economist. You need to subscribe to get it so I’ve copied it. Hope I haven’t broken any rules, well not many, but it needs to come out.
EXTINCTION REBELLION is back—and this time it’s political. The environmentalist group, which brought parts of central London to a halt for 11 days in April, has shifted its focus to 12 sites around Westminster, where its members began blockading thoroughfares on October 7th. With its makeshift buildings, meditation sessions and all-night dance marathons, the group has transformed Britain’s political centre. As dozens of mothers staged a mass “nurse in” with their babies on Whitehall, across town at Smithfield meat market a candlelit vigil was held for “all the animals who lost their lives”. Protesters plan to stay put for a fortnight.
The police, who were caught off-guard in April, are this time better prepared. Some 580 arrests were made in just the first 48 hours, more than half the total made during the April rebellion. Over 80 tonnes of equipment have been seized. Grant Shapps, whose Department for Transport had protesters superglued to its doors, nonetheless complained that officers were just “standing around the edges”.
They have their work cut out in policing what has become a formidably well organised protest group. Whereas the Occupy movement, a similar outfit, became bogged down in cumbersome “people’s assemblies”, Extinction Rebellion (XR) has adopted an approach called holacracy, a management theory developed in 2007 by Brian Robertson, an American software engineer. Holacracy claims to spread power across employees by ditching traditional management hierarchies in favour of semi-autonomous “circles”. In XR’s case, this amounts to what are in effect franchises of the main brand, which plan and carry out their own protests, following a loose set of rules set out by the main group. “The majority of the protests that happen this week I won’t know about,” says Sam Knights, one of the group’s strategists.
As well as making the group more nimble, this has helped it avoid the internal divisions that often hamper protest movements. It helps that XR does not ask its members for a joining fee. Funding comes from the likes of Radiohead, a rock band, and Aileen Getty, an oil heiress. XR claims to have spent £1m ($1.2m) on this fortnight’s protests alone.
Holacracy or not, hierarchies persist. In July a report by Policy Exchange, a right-leaning think-tank, identified two powerful groups within XR, known as the Anchor Circle and the Rapid Response Team (the latter has apparently since been replaced by a Political Circle and Organisational Circle). The report claimed that people in these steering groups had beliefs “rooted in the political extremism of anarchism, eco-socialism and radical anti-capitalist environmentalism”, in contrast to the diverse views of XR’s members.
XR has tried to keep its public messaging moderate, deleting some of the overly political tweets that occasionally slip out on its Twitter account (“This movement is the best chance we have of bringing down capitalism,” read one in April). Nonetheless, those protesters chanting, “This is what democracy looks like,” might be surprised to learn that their group is being run in a not entirely democratic way. ■
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/10/10/how-the-anarchists-of-extinction-rebellion-got-so-well-organised
“…you have to look holistically at the agenda and work with communities to find solutions…”
“Who has paid for it? Industry, our Alliance for Digital Inclusion partners have understood the importance of the strategic coordinating role, alongside the delivery of projects on the ground. AOL, BT, Cisco, IBM, Intel, Microsoft and T-mobile are all supporting this work. ” written by Gail Bradbury https://www.ippr.org/files/uploadedFiles/research/projects/Digital_Society/gail_bradbrook_speech.pdf
Worse, the claim that “all the science” suggests what he claims us a basic lie. There is no science that supports that, only vague and extreme claims made by a few scientists. That is not the same as science. I suggest you pint that out to the DT – what a scientist says is not science. Science is what can be demonstrated, replicated and proven, not a series of claims made by activists who just happen to be scientists.
The reduction of the PRT rate to zero was not a tax cut. PRT was set at a high rate with the idea that it guaranteed that the government could collect a decommissioning fund up front in case oil companies abandoned fields without proper decommissioning. When a field is decommissioned, some of the cost was covered by repayment of PART at the prevailing rate. Setting the rate to zero meant no repayments. The rate had already been reduced earlier to 50%. Decommissioning refunds were running at more than the production tax still being collected on old fields.
Perhaps the government should institute a similar arrangement for wind farms. It could argue that ring fencing decommissioning funds was not a tax increase of the kind that sweetheart wind farm deals are supposedly protected from.
Perhaps I should have stated that the zero rate of PRT is in fact a retrospective tax increase, replacing the interest free loan to government implicit in the original legislation and intent.
Here’s the letter I sent to the Telegraph last week – and which they didn’t print:
“I find myself wondering how many Extinction Rebellion protesters have bothered to examine closely the claim they make that climate change is devastating and destroying our planet, and that mankind is responsible?
The scaremongering is relentless. Al Gore for example has claimed in his book that we are ‘thickening the atmosphere with carbon dioxide’ – which is nonsense. Sir David Attenborough is given free reign by the BBC to promote his own frightening agenda, yet his claims are not subject to open public debate with scientists who hold opposing views based on evidence from real world observations.
The politically led gravy train thunders on unhindered, as exemplified by the EU spending billions of Euros on ‘mitigating climate change.’ Perhaps Extinction Rebellion should be protesting about the colossal sums of money being wasted – money which would be better spent on health, social, care and all the other essential services upon which our society depends.
Meanwhile, a 16-year old schoolgirl is reverentially listened to at the United Nations – but not scientists who don’t consider that we face climatic Armageddon. It really is time that the whole CO2/climate farce ended – but where are the scientists and politicians with the courage to stand up and be counted?”
Perhaps when all of these “green” people get what they are protesting, demanding and asking for they might change their minds? This will start when the major oil refineries are closed by the governments they elected. A sudden social and economic Cat-5 hurricane. Their world out of gas and on the way to being out of food. A beautiful future Mr. Hardy?
It’s a general problem that I see many times, not online but also offline. People won’t even accept the blatant facts when they stare in their faces. Oil & Gas pay a lot of taxes and don’t get subsidized in developed countries and still, people believe the reverse is true. Try discussing this with one of the extremists. I had instances where some shouted at me until I went away. So much for a reasoned discussion. Its terror and terror can only be met with pain. The pain of their own crap. This thing must run its course and it will hurt people like hell. Only when they are hurting so much that the day is shouting only, they will change. All we can do is wait and prepare.
Details of the ER corruption are revealed by the Mail on Sunday:
“How Extinction Rebellion climate change zealots – including a baronet’s Cambridge-educated granddaughter – are paid £400 a week to bring mayhem to our streets”.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566515/Extinction-Rebellion-files-reveal-climate-zealots-paid-400-week.html
It was good to observe last week that there were a few instances in the MSM of a push back against the nonsense – but even Andrew in his brilliant put down of the XR lady kept the gloves on. What was disappointing was that most of the commentaries started with something like “I recognise that climate change is a huge challenge….” and went on with something along the lines of “…but XR are going the wrong way about it”. Why the heck can’t somebody in the media start out saying that this is all a load of rubbish based on lies and false data?
What is the mysterious ‘Supplementary Charge’ in the taxation regime Paul? Does the revenue from it have a specific purpose?
Here’s the explanation:
Supplementary Charge (SC) applies to ring fence profits accruing from 17 April 2002. The current rate of SC is 10% which has been reduced from 20% with effect from 1 January 2016.
The rate of SC has undergone a number of changes over the years reflecting the oil and gas economic climate at the time. The rate was originally 10% in 2002, was increased to 20% in 2006, and to 32% in respect of profits accruing after 23 March 2011, until the rate was reduced back to the pre-2011 level of 20% for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2015. The rate was further reduced to 10% for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2016. Relief for decommissioning expenditure for work undertaken after 21 March 2012 was however limited to 20% in the periods when the rate exceeded the 20% threshold. This is achieved by grossing up the profits otherwise subject to SC by a fraction of the amount by which the profits have been reduced by decommissioning costs.
The tax base of profits subject to SC is the ring fence profits of the company chargeable to Corporation Tax after removing financing costs and deducting any Field, Cluster, or Investment allowances available
https://cwenergy.co.uk/services/supplementary-charge/
G Brown introduced it in 2002, presumably to make more money!
https://web.archive.org/web/20070206104245/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2002/revbn17.htm
Also worth noting that the Ring Fenced C Tax is still 30% as it was in 2002, which was the normal rate of CT in 2002. In other words, Big Oil has not benefitted from subsequent cuts in CT
Are we sure Tom Hardy is not another virtue signalling actor? He has the right post code and he has the signature misinformation of his trade.
More XR hypocrisy:
http://www.thegwpf.com/extinction-rebellion-founder-blasted-for-blind-hypocrisy-after-11000-mile-flight-for-luxury-holiday/
As if you needed reminding that renewables just transfer money from the least able to afford energy to the richest (this is not the Queen’s fault, it’s the politicians to blame).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566749/Queens-100m-year-windfall-Green-energy-earnings-Royal-Family.html
The big problem is that those of us who oppose the climate lunacy are mainly moderates who get no media publicity. We need a proper movement to oppose the lunatics, but are very unlikely to form one. The evolution of XR is similar to how the Nazis took control so successfully in just a few months: when they go violent we will have to act, and it wont be long either!