Skip to content

How To Change A Mind

January 14, 2020

By Paul Homewood



Guest post by Duncan McNeil:

How to change a mind.

I have always found it difficult to answer the question from advocates of the dangers of anthropogenic climate change that “do you think there is a vast conspiracy of scientists lying to us about climate change?” I found the beginning of an answer in a book called Rebel Ideas, the power of diverse thinking by Matthew Syed. It helped me to understand the dynamics of groupthink.

“Homogenous groups don’t just underperform, they do so in predictable ways. When you are surrounded by similar people, you are not just likely to share each other’s blind spots, but to reinforce them. This is sometimes called “mirroring”. Encircled by people who reflect your picture of reality, and whose picture you reflect back to them, it is easy to become ever more confident of judgements that are incomplete or downright wrong. Certainty becomes inversely correlated with accuracy.”

It then cites a study concerning two teams trying to solve a complex problem, one team being a group of friends, the other team including an outsider, thus introducing diversity of thought to the process.

“Those in the two groups had very different experiences of the task. Those in diverse teams found the discussion cognitively demanding. There was plenty of debate and disagreement, because different perspectives were aired. They typically came to the right decisions, but were not wholly certain about them. The fact that they had such a full and frank discussion of the case meant that they were exposed to its inherent complexity.

But what of the homogeneous teams? Their experiences was radically different. They found the session more agreeable because they spent most of the time, well, agreeing. They were mirroring each other’s perspectives. And although they were more likely to be wrong, they were far more confident about being right. … And this hints at the danger of homogeneous groups: they are more likely to form judgements that combine excessive confidence with grave error.”

Later on in the book Syed details the conversion of one of America’s most famous white supremacist, Derek Black, to being able to see the world as full of individuals irrespective of colour. Before his conversion any attempt of debate on race was immediately shut down with no attempt to consider another point of view. The key to his change of mind was the slow establishment of trust with a different thinker through discussions not related to race. When he realised that they had much in common he became open to the idea of looking at his racial beliefs from another point of view. And so the conversation began.

So how can a conversation, a discussion begin with an advocate of the dangers of anthropogenic climate change?

I have found that if I have the time and the opportunity to let a person get to know me, chat with them, even share a few jokes, see me as, not a science denier or an environment hater, but as someone who is willing to listen to them and consider their point of view then a fruitful discussion may ensue.

I always encourage them to put their point of view forward first, let them lead the discussion. “Why do you think that?” is always a good question to ask of them (and myself). Never try to push too hard. Try to stay focussed on the subject of climate change, maybe point out when they conflate climate science with environmentalism or rubbish disposal or politics. Ensure there is a differentiation made between climate change and anthropogenic climate change. Make the point that the human population has always changed the environment to suit its needs.

When asked “Do you believe in climate change?” I answer “Belief is not founded on facts, I prefer to look for evidence on which to base my understanding of the world.”

In answer to “What do you believe?” I warn them that my answer is quite a long one and is not a belief but a fact.

It goes:

“There is no reproducible empirical scientific evidence that the extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by the human population burning fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution has had, or will have, an effect on the Earth’s climate that is detrimental to the human population.

Empirical scientific evidence: data obtained by observation and measurement, processed transparently including full documentation of uncertainty levels.”

Be respectful at all times. It is difficult to even contemplate, let alone form a contrary opinion when a person is bombarded from all sides, at all times, by literature and videos produced by the advocates of the dangers of anthropogenic climate change. There is even the risk of being ostracised by the people around you if there is a hint that you may not agree with everything in their entire box of beliefs. It takes a strong person to stand against the currents of popular opinion.

“When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?”

  1. JimW permalink
    January 14, 2020 12:31 pm

    Paul, there a few good books about the dangers of group think. However with CC there is a religious element to it that defies logical analysis.
    My wife put her finger on it as we were watching a recording of the Sky Italia series ‘Name of the Rose’ the other evening. In the last but one episide there is a rant in a pulpit from one of the monks about the coming ‘end of worlds’ when humans’ evils will cause all sorts of what we would now describe as environmental ‘crisis’. She turned to me and said he could have been reading an article from the Guardian about CC.
    Its rather difficult arguing logically in the face of religious tyranny, as Brother Baskerville found.

    • January 14, 2020 1:24 pm

      Is the series related to the Sean Connery film of the same name? (My hubby could not stand that movie….can’t imagine a series.)

      You can’t argue logically with irrational people. Not to say religion is irrational, but religious fervor often is. Which is why new converts often fail. I’m not sure why we don’t take advantage of this. Hit the new converts with rules, rules, rules. Make their life miserable. Make sure they have no idea of the reasons for this and how horrible they are if they don’t follow the rules. Heck, the progressives killed religion that way and quite effectively. Teach the new converts they are hideous sinners if they throw away a plastic straw or eat something besides kale. Hold tent meetings. Really, religion is being killed by emphasizing the RULES and how evil they are. So, CAGW is full of HORRIBLE, EVIL, NASTY rules and you lose your “salvation” if you violate them. Yes, we point out hypocrisy, but that’s useless. Point out the evil of those who fail to follow draconian rules and sacrifice their existence for the greater good. Make their own rules (and some you made up—it’s okay to do that. The progressives do it all the time with religion.) suffocate them. Maybe it sounds wrong, but it’s a fact that rules without a basis will suffocate people and people are naughty little creatures that don’t like rules. That’s why in the end, CAGW leads to hell on earth—you need rules that make “fire and brimstone” look like a walk in the park and you need lots and lots of martyrs for the cause. This needs to be emphasized, not as a downside, but just as “these are the rules of your new belief, follow them or else you’re nothing, worthless, horrible”. You really aren’t ever going to get the true believers to understand why they are wrong. They lack the intelligence and emotional capacity to do so. All that’s left is to present the worst possible reality of CAGW and beat them over the head with it. Is it moral and correct? I don’t know. But, unless you want Tom Steyer using you as a climate slave or eliminating you altogether, it should be considered an option. Sorry, but rational discourse is impossible with irrational people—that’s a law of human behavior.

      • Tym Fern permalink
        January 14, 2020 6:20 pm

        It is a remake of the film in the form of several episodes.

      • January 14, 2020 8:52 pm

        Tym Fern: Thanks. Sounds interesting. (To me!)

    • mjr permalink
      January 15, 2020 7:35 am

      I had a similar experience last night catching up on Doctor Who from Sunday.Spoiler alert – the story was based on planet where people lived in a dome – as the rest of the planet was toxic inhabited by CO2 breathing aliens. Except…. it turned out to be Earth in the future. And the programme ended with a three minute monologue from the doctor around how it was all due to humans and global warming and it didnt have to be like this if man had taken action at the time. i am used to Doctor Who being a general vehicle for BBC Wokeism (last week it was subtlely glorifying female achievement (Ada Lovelace apparently invented computing). But such overt politicising was extreme even by BBC standards

  2. Eoin Mc permalink
    January 14, 2020 12:48 pm

    In the era of smartphone click bait and increasingly small attention spans, especially in this and the next generations of kids, I fear that the altruistic idea to sway climate alarmists away from the echo chamber they inhabit is excessively optimistic. In my forty years of adult life I have been amazed at how few people can think logically or in depth. Most of the time they are on auto pilot. I suspect that the increased level of connectivity to the internet has made this capacity of individual and independent thought even more limited than heretofore. On a personal note, I count myself privileged to have discovered the small number of climate science sceptic blogs, such as this blog and Watts Up with That in 2004. I had no reason to disbelieve what is now called ‘the science’ back then but being somewhat of an independent thinker I wanted an alternative point of view. It took me several years, in those pre-Greta days, to deprogramme myself out of the subconscious indoctrination that was imbedded.

    • rwf1 permalink
      January 14, 2020 10:56 pm

      Try “C3 headlines” site for a good reference to a lot of other great sites for real science info.

  3. Tony Budd permalink
    January 14, 2020 12:59 pm

    The main problem is that there are now virtually no “independent” scientists: they are all employed to “do” the science that their employer wishes them to do. If they disagree with the group-think (e.g. at James Cook University), they lose their job.

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 14, 2020 1:33 pm

      Tony…. Many times the “employer” is not a scientist but an administrator with little or no scientific background. Someone in charge of maintaining the funding from which large overheads are taken to support their own existence. Do not threaten them?

  4. jack broughton permalink
    January 14, 2020 1:08 pm

    Good approach to the “Why would all these scientists lie?” question. I have often made the error of launching in to the poor science and historical evidence against AGW which does tend to require people to be willing to listen and think: most “believers” have switched-off as immediately they label you as a “denier” and therefore by definition a maniacal-fanatic. Will try the mirroring approach in future and a more gentle approach and see if the “believers” listen better…… not holding my breath!

    • January 14, 2020 2:27 pm

      Why does anyone lie?

      • Gerry, England permalink
        January 15, 2020 1:42 pm

        Either to shift blame to somebody else or to ensure a near $2trillion band wagon keeps rolling.

      • January 15, 2020 4:44 pm

        Gerry—so money and power.

  5. saparonia permalink
    January 14, 2020 1:24 pm

    This is the way out of the mess I think. I’ve noticed that the people who are the most visible regarding their fear of the climate tend to follow common trends in addition to their views as belief system. I like how you have analysed this and given us a way towards communication. Thanks, good post.

  6. January 14, 2020 1:35 pm

    An excellent piece, worthy of the widest possible distribution.Can it be tattooed onto the foreheads of the BBC’s ‘climate experts’; or is that just wishful thinking?
    For those who want to explore further how divergent opinions make for a good team performance I can recommend the works by R. Meredith Belbin on ‘Team Roles’.

  7. Joe Public permalink
    January 14, 2020 2:02 pm

    Thanks for sharing, Duncan.

  8. Thomas Carr permalink
    January 14, 2020 2:23 pm

    A very good post and well deserving of the space you have given it, Paul.

  9. Chilli permalink
    January 14, 2020 2:31 pm

    > I have found that if I have the time and the opportunity to let a person get to know me,
    > chat with them, even share a few jokes, see me as, not a science denier or an
    > environment hater, but as someone who is willing to listen to them and consider
    > their point of view then a fruitful discussion may ensue.

    Yes, this might work on a brainwashed NPC, but not on a climate zealot – what James Dellingpole would call a watermelon – who is just using climate alarmism to forward their political agenda. Make no mistake, they want you gone, and will lie, cheat, slander and smear as necessary to achieve this. I would put most of the climate ‘science’ community in this later category.

    • January 14, 2020 4:50 pm

      I’ve said it before and I will no doubt say it again. I attended an after-dinner speech by the late Prof Hal Lewis who said you can engage with the general public but you are wasting your time with the small percentage of the population who are zealots, who will never listen to reason or look at the evidence and will never change their minds.

  10. Bernard Taylor permalink
    January 14, 2020 2:36 pm

    Irvine Janis wrote a book entitled ‘Groupthink’ some time ago. In it he describes various instances where groupthink led to disastrous consequences. The most telling example was the description of the decision-making process which led to the attempted invasion of Cuba in the ‘Bay of Pigs’ fiasco. The process was very similar to the ‘bubble’ type of situation we are familiar with today. Only views in agreement with the consensus were tolerated. Any counter arguments were vigorously excluded and their advocates vilified. Any qualms held by the members of the group firmly suppressed. President Kennedy closely analysed how this group of clever people could have got it so wrong. He changed the way meetings were conducted. He did not initially voice his own opinion and he encouraged the group to come up with a wide range of different views – all of which were considered. He encouraged people to examine their own opinions and to articulate the inconsistancies and shortcomings of those opinions. The result of these reforms was that when the Cuban missile crisis came along the decision-making performance of essentially the same group of men was, fortunately for the whole world, incomparably better.
    Janis looked at ‘groupthink’ in relatively small, decision-making groups and not in whole movements like the green movement although it is likely that the same mechanisms apply. A book by the late Christopher Booker also entitled ‘Groupthink’ is to be released in March. It will be very interesting to read his take on it.

  11. Bob Aldridge permalink
    January 14, 2020 3:17 pm

    I find it quite bizarre that when perfectly intelligent people go ‘green’, they grow gormless.

  12. January 14, 2020 3:38 pm

    I’ve come to the realization that one can be of two minds … a desire to build or to burn bridges. Are we looking for allies or enemies? Don’t begin the conversation by insulting the person you are seeking to enlighten.

    As well, I try to be mindful of the Churchill quote; “If you stop to throw rocks at every barking dog ….”

    • tonyb permalink
      January 14, 2020 4:07 pm

      Nice article.

      I have had a number of meetings at the met office in Exeter and regularly use their library and archives as I live close by.

      Having met perhaps a dozen scientists there I would say they are all very competent, very nice and very interested in those who do not follow their beliefs, but…..

      A very senior scientist told me that a project that did not finger the human input to climate would not be approved, that there is zero interest in conducting primary historical research into medieval and later climate eras.

      Interest in climate starts at around 1850 due to the richness of the records and in that respect mark marthy has created a comprehensive set of data that gets a regular airing in the press.

      Several very senior people have told me they could not definitively say that the modern era is warmer than past eras, most specifically the mwp, the Roman and bronze age.

      Staff in the library also used to bemoan the fact that few of the scientists found their way in To the facility and prefer to use digital data rather than leaf through old records that have not yet been digitised.

      All in all I think the met office is a fine organisation but are subject to group think

      • Broadlands permalink
        January 14, 2020 5:12 pm

        “Interest in climate starts at around 1850 due to the richness of the records and in that respect mark marthy has created a comprehensive set of data that gets a regular airing in the press.”

        Indeed it has. The average global temperature over the 20th century has been 287°K, 14°C. It is now 14.83°C, an increase of only 6%. Why that has become a “climate emergency” boggles the mind. The answer, of course, is well-funded climate modelers with their dire predictions and doomsday forecasts given to the media to transmit to us all.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        January 14, 2020 5:48 pm

        I make 283’K to 283.83’K an increase of almost 0.3%.

  13. Patrick Harcourt permalink
    January 14, 2020 4:13 pm

    A most interesting post by Duncan McNeil with which I tend to agree. One has to show empathy with the other side otherwise it becomes a dialogue of the deaf. I have been studying climate change for the last nine years and the more I learn the more I realise I do not know and how enormously uncertain much of the science is. It is incredibly complex and when reading the small print in the “Science Basis” of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group 1 you become aware of the tremendous uncertainties which are excluded in the Summary for Policymakers and the media.

    When I talk to those who firmly believe in the CO2 hypothesis I usually find that nearly all of them know very little about the subject. Ask them, for example, about climate sensitivity, feedbacks, and the limitations of climate models and they simply repeat the usual mantras that the science is settled and 97% of scientists cannot be wrong. I have not found anyone so far who has actually read the IPCC WG1 for AR5. The media is a good deal to blame by spinning one side or the other especially the Guardian and the BBC in the UK but also some of the sceptics are not well informed and come out with fallacious arguments – also the ad hominem attacks are disgraceful.


  14. Ben Vorlich permalink
    January 14, 2020 5:59 pm

    The last discussion I had with a believer started when I said I didn’t believe that AGW was a problem. The ne t two minutes consisted of him asking me if I thought the Earth was flat. We only moved on when I asked if he believed, like I do, the The earth was an oblate spheroid, that Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon, and Eugene Cernon last to step off., that we’re at historically low levels of CO2 but not quite the lowest andthat 10k years ago where I grew was under many metres of ice. It actually took me several attempts to actually say it all without being talked down.

    • Philip Mulholland permalink
      January 14, 2020 7:43 pm

      “The next two minutes consisted of him asking me if I thought the Earth was flat”
      The astonishing irony of that question to you is that climate science is based on a flat Earth model in which there is no distinction between day and night.

  15. MrGrimNasty permalink
    January 14, 2020 6:07 pm

    Oh no, the oceans are being Hiroshima bombed again. And the ‘faster than previously thought’ message is back after that withdrawn paper.

    There’s no meaningful data for the vastness of the oceans before Argo (is that array even sufficient to scratch the volume), yet ‘scientists’ can be sure how much the oceans have warmed to within 1/1000 of a degree.

    Nicky Campbell was almost reduced to tears on BBC R5Live this morning with this news.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      January 14, 2020 8:57 pm

      “So how large is the imbalance between the energy entering and leaving the ocean? Well, over the period of record, the average annual change in ocean heat content per Cheng et al. is 5.5 zettajoules per year … which is about one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the energy entering and leaving the ocean.”

      We’re doooooomed Cpt. Mainwaring. The climate scare is indeed like the story of the old empty barn – there’s nothing in it.

      • January 15, 2020 12:29 pm

        Polar bears are dying again, too, according to the “send us more money now or the polar bear gets it” WWF. Sad video, song that was about humans, not bears, playing in the background. Of course, the WWF hates humans so the song has to apply to bears. They do LOOOOVVVEEEE those greenbacks, though, so send lots of them, or again, the polar bear gets it. I really thought that blantant lie had died down. But, when all you have is hysterics, I guess it’s rinse and repeat. Same for the Hiroshima bomb false analogy (how many Hiroshima bombs hit us every day???? Hit, it’s a really bit number). The most terrifying thing here is the collective IQ of humans is so low and dropping that this works. I don’t see a real solution, though I have volunteered to pay for WWF to go hug those poor little polar bears. No takers to date though.

  16. Edward Bull permalink
    January 14, 2020 6:58 pm

    As part of the AGW drip feed, have UK TV viewers noticed how the BBC weather gives “gusts up to” rather than forecast average wind speeds? Temperatures have UHI included, so we have “overnight temperatures in rural areas are likely to be 2 – 3 degrees C lower. Regional programme East Midlands Today seems to have a feature on Climate Change and/or reduced meat consumption almost every day. Its getting really silly.

    • Peter Barrett permalink
      January 14, 2020 8:17 pm

      Now, to emphasise how important the increase in number and strength of storms is, they are given names. (Yes, I know they are neither stronger nor more numerous, but – climate emergency.) One of our sons had a friend when they were both about four years old who used to give names to clouds. Similar mentality.

    • January 15, 2020 12:45 pm

      Edward: “Gusts up to” are really, really important in high wind areas. Gusts of 70 to 80 mph can knock a human being over, tip semi trucks, etc. I would guess in England the gusts are not up to 70 mph on a regular basis, but they are here in Wyoming and the gusts are again what cause the damage. I suppose accurately reporting winds that can damage could be seen as “alarmism”. Maybe closing the interstate so the semis don’t blow over is alarmism too. I always thought it was to protect life and property, but maybe not.

      Peter: Yes, they named winter storms and all kinds of idiocy. It was a completely USELESS move however. People remember the names of hurricanes because there are four or five a season. There are hundreds of winter storms and no one even pays attention. Of course, the weather blonde looks soooo adorable saying “Storm Raphael” will be hitting Montana tomorrow, but honestly, Montana doesn’t give a whit about her and the stupid storm. They’re busy doing what they always do—living life in a cold, stormy climate. A blonde dimwit and a named storm is irrelevant.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 15, 2020 2:06 pm

      Surveying the remains of part of my fence this morning, I would say that the information on gusts is quite important as it they that will do the damage. And it certainly sounded very gusty last night down in Surrey.

      As for UHI, in my experience it is more like 4 to 5 degrees lower than built up areas. I would also say it is more noticeable at the extremes of temperature which could be when heating – cooling systems are working more.

      • January 15, 2020 4:46 pm

        You have my sympathies on your fence. We mostly lose shingles and occasionally other items that finally give out. Privacy fences don’t do well here.

  17. dearieme permalink
    January 14, 2020 7:00 pm

    Does anyone know of a handy online place where I can find a summary of the “Green”/”woke” views of Hitler and his fellow Nazis?

  18. John Cullen permalink
    January 14, 2020 8:05 pm

    While it is always good to be able to change individual minds, it is also important to understand how group-think comes to extend beyond the group and thereby infects a larger community such as the mainstream media and the political elites.

    Part of the answer seems to be that political elites are greatly influenced by secretive lobbying, with Washington DC, Westminster, and Brussels having the most extensive lobbying systems [Ref. 1] and are therefore most susceptible to, for example, Green NGOs which have the financial resources to retain lobbying firms. Ordinary voters and energy consumers do not have the resources (and are not currently organised) to counter these lobbies.

    A further part of the argument relates to the creation of a ‘them and us’ culture in the public discourse i.e. ‘woke climate warriors’ versus ‘deniers’. ‘Them and us’ is the realm of the propagandist who seeks to induce a literally mindless or knee-jerk reaction in the audience [Refs. 2, 3, 4]. Much of the mainstream media in the UK (and other Western countries) seems to have been induced to produce the knee-jerk or group-think reactions of the Greens and their rent-seeking, crony-capitalist sympathisers such that energy consumers pay greatly increased energy bills and tax payers subsidise these rent-seekers.

    Fortunately some individual broadcasters [e.g. Ref. 5] have a degree of awareness of their elite position which isolates them from ordinary people. However, their employers, the major media corporations, are very different and may be severely compromised in the debate; for example, Christopher Booker has written of what he called the triple betrayal of the BBC [see e.g. Ref. 6].

    I have written more extensively on this important topic – see the final comment in [Ref. 7].

    1. T. Cave & A. Rowell, “”A Quiet Word – lobbying, crony capitalism and broken politics in Britain”, Vintage, 2015.
    2. Y. Varoufakis, “And The Weak Suffer What They Must?”, Vintage, 2016, page 245.
    3. J. Stanley, “How Propaganda Works”, Princeton University Press, 2015.
    4. J. Stanley, “How Fascism Works – the politics of us and them”, Random House, 2018.

    John Cullen.

    • dave permalink
      January 15, 2020 7:36 am

      The Servant has become the Master:

      • January 15, 2020 12:50 pm

        Everyone except the completely unthinking, without a brain, KNOW Google is a marketing machine, NOT a search engine, and they gather terrabytes of info then sold to the billionaires who rule the earth. Really, the servant became the master because of denial of reality that will also keep the servant the master. People were in complete denial of the reality of social media and the use of the internet as a communist control mechanism. Too bad——stupidity costs and this will cost dearly. It’s too late now. The rich and powerful OWN the stupid people with eyes glued to their cell phones. 90% of the world is owned. The 10% hasn’t got a chance. I fully believe this is what people wanted—to stop thinking and live in hell because it’s so much easier. They got what they wanted.

  19. dennisambler permalink
    January 14, 2020 11:49 pm

    You might find this of interest, The Fascism of Environmentalism, By Bernard Switalski

    Click to access Anti-Green.pdf

    • dennisambler permalink
      January 14, 2020 11:50 pm

      double post, was reply to dearieme

  20. January 15, 2020 12:28 am

    “There is no reproducible empirical scientific evidence that the extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by the human population burning fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution has had, or will have, an effect on the Earth’s climate”

    Or that the extra carbon dioxide was added to the atmosphere by the human population burning fossil fuels.

  21. mjr permalink
    January 15, 2020 7:45 am

    Very interesting . on a similar vein i have just listened to this weeks “Word of Mouth” on BBC R4
    Usually a good programme – all about language and usage. This week was “The language of climate change”. with George Marshall. Given his background it was always going to be one sided.
    But it is worth listening to as it gives a lot of information about how language is used and how it reinforces the green bubbles group thinking and is it used to over dramatise situations

  22. StephenP permalink
    January 15, 2020 8:12 am

    At school in maths we used a technique called ‘ Reductio ad Absurdum ‘ where one followed an argument until it reached a conclusion that was patently absurd, such as 5=7.
    This technique sometimes works with activists by following their line of reasoning until they see some of the consequences of their beliefs and the effect on their lives.

  23. Ariane permalink
    January 15, 2020 9:34 am

    Paul, thanks for this post. In answer to your question about information I would look at the historical and chronological facts about how the AGW movement grew – starting from the Limits to Growth by those rich people at the Club of Rome, and the UNEP’s founder Maurice Strong’s desire to destroy Western industrial civilisation. The vilification of CO2 was required by these people to achieve their aims of stopping development and keeping ‘ordinary’ working people poor. Industry creates wealth and empowers and educates working people. There has never been any science (only computer models.) But science has been appropriated by the anti-CO2 movement because the modern world values science.

  24. Carbon500 permalink
    January 15, 2020 11:47 am

    On the subject of supposed anthropogenic climate change, In Nottingham the (Labour) council is planning to make the city ‘carbon neutral’ by 2028.
    Here’s a link to their current document on the subject (it’s a pdf) on the subject:
    I’ve only just had had a quick look through it. There’s a lot of corporate waffle, but I intend to take a closer look at their claims. I’d welcome any comments and links to data contradicting what they say.
    Are any other cities in other countries coming up with this sort of thing?

    • Carbon500 permalink
      January 15, 2020 1:05 pm

      Sorry everyone – the Nottingham council pdf link doesn’t work! Try this and follow the on-site directions:

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 15, 2020 2:11 pm

      If you are around London then keep an eye on 16 March as the City of London closes a busy traffic route to normal traffic. Zero emission vehicles only and with UK sales of battery cars making up just 0.7% it should be quiet on the street.

      Anyone else seen the absurdity of Tossla now have a paper value of more than GM and Ford combined? This is a company that only rarely makes a profit, has a turnover less than GM’s profits and in a whole year sold less cars than Ford sells pickup trucks in 3 months.

      • Carbon500 permalink
        January 15, 2020 5:32 pm

        Gerry: March the 16th is going to be interesting in London – I predict that there’ll be lots of furious motorists….just a feeling, mind you….
        I’ve just printed out all of Nottingham City Council’s ‘Nottingham 2028 Carbon Neutral Charter’ – all 34 pages of it, with (at a glance) plenty of corporate climate management-speak and a scary statistic or two contained therein.
        I’ll have a leisurely perual of its pages over the next day or two to see what madcap nonsense they have planned. Forewarned is forearmed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: