Petition To Scrap Net Zero
May 18, 2020
By Paul Homewood
h/t Stuart Brown
We need 10,000 signatures by September, and its currently up to 6608. Pass the word round!
Click on the link to sign:
41 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Net-zero means negative emissions after zero emissions is reached. And that means carbon capture and geological storage. Because billions of tons of CO2 would have to be stored safely to make a difference to the climate, this petition should have been unnecessary had the climate policy makers been informed of the amounts involved and the time needed.
It should pass easily?
It’s all about timing with these things, poor when it was first raised, even worse now. Should’ve just let it die and try again at a better time. Need to be more strategic like the alarmists, have a plan to execute when the random spotlight/opportunity arises e.g. after a countrywide blackout.
The 6M+ revoke article 50 petition had false starts, finally it found its moment with the help of desperate BBC publicity, some electronic fraud, but mostly critical timing.
“Net zero” is another meaningless but mendacious AGW phrase, fraudulent and evil.
All phrases of this con trick are thus.
For a start, repeal of the entirely misconceived and hugely damaging Climate Change Act is desperately needed.
Its authors.,Ed Milliband and Briony Worthington should be sent to an uninhabited desert island for some years where they can note the complete failure of the ocean to drown it.
Their return must depend on their recanting.
I’d be very happy to sign, but the ‘sign this petition’ link doesn’t work.
Kind regards
Ian
From Ian Wilkinson
>
Ian, the actual link works, but bot the green ‘button’ – it’s a screen-shot. (Paul, you could make this clear in the preamble.
I’ve signed.
Done!
What use is a petition when there is a good chance that there are enough stupid Ill informed idiots around that will vote to keep it? I watched the quiz show Pointless today. There was a picture of an emu with the letters E_U underneath and 45 out of 100 people didn’t know the answer.
Indeed.
We need to remind ourselves that half of us are of below average intelligence.
That’s not an insult, it’s a statistic.
The problem we seem to have is that our ‘representatives’ seem to be all from the left-hand side of the curve.
And ‘average’ is pretty dim.
Done, thanks Paul.
It won’t open
Sent from Outlook
________________________________
Not the Green button – the LINK
I don’t remember signing it , but I got an email back saying I had already signed it.
Yes, I had the same thing. I wonder whether/where I can write to have that checked out
Same here!
As did I!
Success! Tried again just now with a different email address. Didn’t touch my cookies. Not aware that I did anything else different.
Plus one. I know I’m getting a bit old and senile, so I might have just forgotten. It is the sort of petition that I would’ve signed already, in this day and age it always raises the question as to whether malign forces may seek to stop people from signing.
Same here,
Signed-thanks, Paul!
The bonus of having another referendum and winning it, would be that the Greens & Aunty’s Enviros would again be apoplectic with their refusal to accept its outcome. 😉
Signed it – twice but could have gone all night long! Having entered my details, it says: “Your signature will not be counted until you click the link in the email”. You click the link in the email, and it takes you back to the petition, to sign again! So I don’t really know if my signature counted, or not.
Signed. I am not sure it would be a forgone conclusion that we would lose because there has never been a public debate about this. As well as pushing back this specific proposal it would open up the debate on the whole alarmist project. I hope that with the advent of films like Planet of the Humans the time is now right.
I cant sign. Doesn’t the Empire or the Commonwealth matter to you guys any more?
It’s supposed to be for UK citizens.
Hi Paul,
There is a problem with the links in your opening pages requesting a signature for a referendum. The “more details” link and the Sign Green Box do not give a live link to the Gov Petition page. Maybe they have been hacked ? I tried several times and eventually found a way through via the only one that works, which is this link
https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/83579126/verify?token=qn-W6YnaDM252pIIpNSp
, but the initial access route does not work. It could mean you are losing quite a few signers.
I fully agree with the idea. well done in starting one off.
Mike Turner
>
Click on the https link above, then on ‘sign this petition’.
Anyone getting ‘already signed’ may need to clear down their cookies.
Yes, the box is just a screenshot – you need to click on the link to access
I will sign, but after years of political campaigning, I feel this is going to produce the opposite effect. People are still, by and large, “zombied” by all the climate fear mongering and in awe of the opinions of senior public figures, e.g. Attenborough. If a referendum were held, I believe we would lose it at the present time. We will not get a second chance.
To stop this destructive power grab by the UN motivated green “elites” several years of coordinated campaigning will be needed….how many years did it take to achieve Brexit?
Softly, Softly….!!!
For starters we need many more letters to the press, both national and local. Herewith my article on the origins of the climate scare movement.
On the True Origins of the Climate Alarmist Movement….the United Nations bid for world domination.
Three cheers that Brexit has at last happened, and a period of transition underway. Providing PM Boris Johnson delivers on the 31st December, can us Brits now sit back a bit and look forward to years of happy stability, democracy and reinvigorated nationhood?
However, with the change of focus suddenly forced on us with the virus epidemic, and the climate hysteria out of the headlines for the moment, it is all too easy to let our guard drop.
The eternal battle, we know so well, has always been between those two opposing mindsets: those of us who believe that every person has an equal democratic right to determine the way, and by whom, our country is governed and the others, who believe it’s preferable for an unelected “elite” to rule over us.
Despite Brexit, this latter mindset is still well alive. It hides within a political package, calculatedly unmarked, containing the climate change movement and its propaganda, and has been steadily persuading many of the world’s peoples and governments, including our own, to accept its false beliefs. The unwritten label should read, “Towards Global Governance by the UN”.
When the UN was formed in 1945, The US Senate was reassured that it would not interfere in the sovereignty of the US or the domestic affairs of the American people. It was sold as a debating chamber for the world’s nations to solve problems, to foster peace and wellbeing. UNESCO was set up in the same year. But, within just a matter of months, in an early 1946 meeting, William Benton, Assistant US Sec. of State said that UNESCO’s goal must include educating children away from “the poisoned air of nationalism”…. and to “break down the walls of national sovereignty” …..into “world-mindedness”. No interference? And only 5 years later, Council for Foreign Relations CFR member, James Warburg, said “We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent”. Over a period of time, spreading fear of a global climate meltdown became the tool for attempting to unite the world’s peoples against the supposed “common external threat” of man-made climate change.
Big names in setting up the climate alarmist movement were Maurice Strong and Dr. Stephen Schneider.
Maurice Strong was a tycoon wheeler-dealer in oil, energy and cattle, yet claiming to be a socialist and environmentalist. He organised the first Earth Summit in 1972, under U Thant. This led to the formation of the UN Environmental Program, UNEP, headed by himself, the first official commitee on “climate change” and a number of new UN bodies. Notably, The Commission on Global Governance, as its title clearly suggests, believes the world is now ready to grant the UN the authority to enter any soveriegn nation to guarantee “the security of the people” as expressed by “rights”, defined in various treaties. UNEP has been behind the environmental movement Agenda 21 which morphed into Agenda 30, incidently gaining the blessing of the Pope. It’s now been rebranded as The Green New Deal, and seemingly taken on board by our (UK) government.
The movement’s true purpose was made plain at the 1992 Rio climate conference, chaired by Maurice Strong, when he stated, “The objective is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government, with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises, whether real or not, is expected to lead to compliance.” In a further quote from the conference, Strong said “How better to accomplish the collapse (of Western Nations) than to create mass hysteria proselytized by the willing dupes in our education system that CO2 is going to destroy the world because allegedly it will cause the temperature to go up 3degC.”
Strong fell from grace, in 2005, over a fraudelent cheque, endorsed and made out to himself for nearly a million dollars, issued by a Jordanian bank in the ‘Oil for Food Program’, and he fled to China.
It was physicist, Dr. Stephen Schneider, who initiated the climate alarmist strategy. Earlier, in a 1989 interview for “Discover” magazine he said that, as a scientist, the whole truth and all the doubts must always be stated. But in order to capture the public’s imagination and get media coverage, “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have,” and that each of us had to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. In other words, as long as you believe you are right, you can lie and exaggerate with a clear conscience to persuade others to your cause. Enter Al Gore, drawn into the debate by Schneider.
As deputy US president, Gore demonstrated this poisonous mindset, of balancing efficiency versus honesty, when his climate adviser, Prof. Willi Happer refused to cooperate. Gore said that the facts must not be allowed to get in the way of policy, and Happer resigned.
I should think we have all watched Gore’s propaganda film “Inconvenient Truth”, around 2007, which brought world opinion “on message” re the climate scare hypothesis. The film was the subject of a court case by a UK school governor Stewart Dimmock, who tried to get it banned in schools. A whole list of “errors and exaggerations” were identified by the court, under Justice Burton, but the film was still allowed to be shown. It contained the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph” stunt, eventually discredited as a scientific fiddle, and which led to the two public enquiry scandals, “Climategates I, and II”.
So called “hockey team” US collaborator, Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, sued Canadian academic, Dr. Tim Ball for saying that he, Dr. Mann of Penn State, should be put in the state pen. This case was eventually concluded in 2019, won by Tim Ball on appeal in California, with the judge agreeing the Michael Mann was “motivated to commit fraud”. And this has been the story of the climate alarmist movement all along.
We re now faced with The Green New Deal implying a complete shut down of fossil fuel use and with its mantra, “Net Zero”. For having just one seat in (the UK) parliament, it must be said the Green Party is doing rather well. And all this because no one of independent mind in our government is checking the facts. They’re just carelessly swallowing every fear-mongering interpretation coming from the UN and it’s climate propaganda body, the IPCC, and with the help of much of the MSM. Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy is that it will be the struggling third world countries, eg. of Africa, who will be hardest hit if this Net Zero demand is imposed on them.
Going back to the beginning of this history, it’s no surprise to learn that Council on Foreign Relations, CFR president, Richard Haass, has joined in the clamour for world government, that he claims will save humanity and the planet. He insists that claims of sovereignty must no longer prevent a world authority from dictating action to deal with environmental problems. But can we just say it the way it really is, please, “…..a UN dictatorship to rule the world.”
Fortunately, there are honourable people standing out against this. One such was the late Harold Lewis, Prof. of Physics at the University of California, a former member of the Defence Science Board and USAF Scientific Advisory Board, and serving on numerous top committees. He resigned his membership of the American Physical Society, after 67 years’ membership, in disgust at their refusal to engage in proper scientific debate about climate change, and their ignoring of climate sceptics.
Lewis stated “It is, of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
And do I detect a hint of the future, with comments beginning to appear in the press about needing to have a co-ordinated world response to the coronvirus outbreak, and maybe an extension to the Brexit transition period? Do the UN’s WHO ‘crats have a back-up plan ready, using fear of COVID-19, if their climate alarmist power bid stalls?
Ian Phillips, BA. Physics. Harbertonford, Nr. Totnes, Devon, UK.
The very lengthy research paper, ibid. on the UN source of the climate scare….
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Global_Governance_Why_How_When.htm
Really excellent sources I consult regularly….
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ (subscribe FREE for daily reports)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/ https://polarbearscience.com/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/
How do I sign this petition, please?
Simon Chalton
>
Just click on the link.
Also here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300316
Signed!
Like many of you, I signed it (last night) and got the “Duplicate Signature” email in return. After checking all my emails since the 6th I clearly haven’t previously signed, and after trying again today I’m not getting ANY email confirmation! It’s nothing to do with Cookies, as they are all cleared by CCleaner at each shutdown. Are there some “Dirty Tricks” going on – it wouldn’t be the least bit surprising, in light of the current efforts to shut down any dissent regarding the lockdown…
Definitely something wrong here as I too received the Duplicate signature email so I did Feedback saying ‘Something seriously wrong here. I did not receive an email to confirm my email address but did receive one to say I had already signed with the subject “Duplicate signature of petition”. I know several others have found the same so we don’t know whether we have signed or not. Has someone hacked your system?’
Be interesting to see if I get a response but looks suspicious to me.
Just had a reply to my Feedback saying I signed the petition on 11th March. I’d assumed this was a new petition but looking again at the petition page it says all petitions run for 6 months and this ends on 6 September so must have started on 6 March. Seems some of us did it earlier.
How do I sign this petition, please?
Simon Chalton
Sent from my iPad
>
Just click on the link
Can’t find the petition.
Click on thr link
Paul, though I often learn new stuff here, and have huge respect for the folk who teach me…. sometimes I wonder.
Maybe you should just crop the green bit off the bottom of the jpg that says ‘sign the petition’ and make the link BIGGER!!
Done!!