Skip to content

How The Climate Crooks Lied To Get The Policies They Wanted

December 15, 2020

By Paul Homewood

Ben Pile’s new video:

43 Comments
  1. December 15, 2020 10:31 am

    As a former farmer I am absolutely shocked that our government makes policy decisions on the random thoughts of ten people. We fund these assemblies (even if we don’t want to) which now seem to be just another vehicle for the indoctrination of the public by environmental NGOs.

    Why were there no scientists, experts or farmers allowed to talk to the assembly & only one activist who, without being rude or personal, looks like she has a very restricted diet. I will wager she is not a meat eater.

    Agriculture is a very important industry in the U.K, whether farmers are growing vegetables, fruits or producing meat. Yet again, the Green ideology is about destroying an industry, for what? So that we can import all our food requirements? There are plenty of issues with a vegetarian & vegan diet.

    Once you have destroyed agricultural land by covering it with wind turbines, solar panels, battery fortresses, houses or trees, it is not easily restored back to growing crops to feed our nation.

    You cannot grow more land.

    There is no thought about food security nor energy security by the eco radicals who are fast taking over the narrative of our media & institutions with their infiltration of every level of society.

    Anyone else notice the Green agenda is more about control, oppression & de industrialisation than it is about caring for people & nature?

    This whole debacle reveals the high level of ignorance in our politicians. The citizens of this country are far too polite. If we were French we would have blocked off the capital with thousands of tractors & yellow vest wearing protesters. We should be standing up & saying enough is enough.

    • Hotscot permalink
      December 15, 2020 11:31 am

      Great comment Lorraine.

      There really only one thing to remember in all this climate nonsense.

      Plant life flourishes between 1,000 ppm – 1,200 ppm atmospheric content.

      Mother Nature is giving us a clue.

    • December 15, 2020 11:55 pm

      The important thing to understand here is that, as Paul has mentioned, the Climate Assembly is merely a means by which the climate lobby and the government can legitimise their preconceived policies. The Assembly members would never be allowed to choose who could give evidence to them. What has happened is that the Assembly has been subject to a form of brain-washing, with ideas implanted. I have attended similar kinds of gatherings and seen it first hand.

  2. Ian Magness permalink
    December 15, 2020 10:34 am

    A perfect video Paul, thanks for sharing.
    How about a poll among your readers to help see who in the U.K. was approached and possibly knowingly vetted about this Assembly?
    Also, who knows anyone else that this would apply to? I know the final number was only around 100 and thus the odds are against many of your readers being even approached, or knowing anyone that had been. Nevertheless, I for one know of nobody who was even considered, and, supposedly, 30,000 household were approached at random.

  3. Brian Smith permalink
    December 15, 2020 10:49 am

    I think those who want a fairer, more balanced approach to climate politics and ideology – and the legislation that flows from those considerations – need to take a leaf out of the Good Law Project’s book and start getting legal.

    The government appears to be printing straightforward untruths, if this video and other things I’ve read – see heat pump technology – are accurate. I think a judicial review or two would both stop this abuse of our disinterest in politics – including green politics – and, at the same time, give people like Paul Homewood and Ben Pile a stage on which to establish the credibility or otherwise of their views.

    Standing on the sidelines shouting ,”Your telling fibs, it’s unfair” isn’t going to get us anywhere.

  4. December 15, 2020 11:02 am

    Go here to see the “expert advice” that the assembly members received
    https://www.climateassembly.uk/meetings/january-24/agenda/index.html
    stwo ten minute talks from climate scientists, and a couple of ten minute rambles from activists, including Chris Stark of the CCC. The intellectual level is dreadful. You wouldn’t talk to school children like that. THe whole exercise was an insult to our intelligence.

  5. December 15, 2020 11:17 am

    They’re still lying and the lies are getting bigger and fancier.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/15/a-co2-holocaust/

  6. jwhscarffe permalink
    December 15, 2020 11:28 am

    Brilliant video – short and very punchy. I shared it my local MP – hoping for some push back against this current madness !!

  7. December 15, 2020 11:34 am

    Anyone surprise by this?

    We are entering a new Dark Age. The Enlightenment is well and truly over.

    To have a random bunch of unqualified people presided over by activists and zealots who also write the ridiculously verbose report using deliberately convoluted language and another outcome was possible?

    We are now having our lives dictated by a minority of minorities of activists, imposing their own personality flaws and weirdness on us all.

    Where is the factual evidence for example to support the meat nonsense? Will someone PLEASE explain to me what the definition of “Saving the Planet” is and it’s units of exchange because I question the conflation of human and planet. It is a simple request. Humans or no humans what does the planet care?

    This is simply vegitarianfeminazis imposing their extremist view of the world onto the majority. Funny isn’t it how it all comes down to a lust for power by people who talk totally the opposite.

  8. Terry Breverton permalink
    December 15, 2020 11:56 am

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-14/u-k-targets-gas-in-next-fight-against-fossil-fuel-pollution How on Earth can we change from cheap gas heating??

    • Cyan permalink
      December 15, 2020 10:41 pm

      Terry, “How on Earth can we change from cheap gas heating??”

      Easy – Lie about the cost of electric heating:

      P.295 “A household switching from a gas boiler to a heat pump for its heating would face an extra policy cost of over £100 a year on its energy bill, despite reducing its emissions in the process.”

      This will be translated by the warmists into “It will only cost a little over £100 a year”

      So you counter: “but what about the cost of installing the heat pump?” to which the warmists will reply: “but it says on page 22 that “to decarbonise the UK’s homes fully” will cost “an average investment of less than £10,000 per home”

      So you counter: “According to OFGEM the average house uses 12,000 kWh of gas per year. replace that with an electric heat pump with a COP of 1.5 and you will need 8000 kWh which at 44.4p per kWh (Page 48, multiply £60 per MWh by the wholesale/retail spread of 7.4) is £3160 per year more than using Gas.

      At this point the warmist replies: “What’s a kWh? What’s COP? You’re a climate change denier”

      Hopeless really.

  9. William Birch permalink
    December 15, 2020 11:56 am

    Really great video. The Eco Globalists who are driving this agenda are Leading the UK to ruin. The “Nanny State anti-democracy” brigade are out trying to coerce the UK electors into accepting a zero Carbon agenda when in fact it will NOT save the planet whilst China & India pay lips service to it. Unfortunately the UK Civil servants in Whitehall have pulled the wool over the eyes of all the main stream political parties who in turn have swallowed this propaganda hook line and sinker. What the electorate is are experiencing is a huge democratic deficit in parliament. We need a political party that represents the views of the very many people who either, have the view that the whole thing is a con or think that these are not the policies that will save our Nation.

  10. europeanonion permalink
    December 15, 2020 12:15 pm

    And we worry about the regulatory effects of Brussels? I saw leaving the EU as the promise of a turn towards democracy not this ambush. Not only may certain aspects of our living be detrimental to our lives and health it is self-evident that the right-on attitude, the easy access to Parliament and the close knit society of our politics is equally damaging.

    There is the personal legacy policy which, in the case of HS2 will probably be visible from the moon. There is the fitness of our minds romance which features our privileged and acutely aware vote seekers running and cycling; looking undignified in public used to denote a form of recklessness which Mr Blair redefined with his incapability to pronounce the faith which he so often alluded to as being his guiding star but could not speak of for being thought a zealot; was actually a relative locked away in a garret, raving.

    We have moved on from thought crime, that is assured. We are now in a era where our NGO’s can have full rein to use their clout (what’s the use of having such things if they are not seen to be earning their corn). This can be seen with the Met Office which is a department that John Le Carre would have seen in action as a form of insurrection and spying. As is pointed out in the film, the BBC is the organ through which government mod music is disseminated along with all those cosy family programmes which we are told we all love. The family around the television being irradiated by the latest bit of infiltration.

    I sometime wonder why we even try in our cause to campaign against that which we see as unholy and obviously schemed. I can get worked up to the point of apoplexy over these issues but for what we see as results or acknowledgement does not support the effort. In a state where only the favoured few have the whip-hand there seems little use in kicking against the pricks. My home town is full of complainants but the house building and the industrial estates still get built and our landscape tells the lie of planning as opposed to enabling. We few, we happy few, is it time to accept that the madhouse is not being run by us but by collections of ten people who stand in front of the legislation and hide from view any sort of representative assembly? I’m beginning to feel nostalgic about Brussels. I must stop it.

  11. Penda100 permalink
    December 15, 2020 12:17 pm

    Life was much simpler in olden times. Then, all you had to do to appease the climate gods was to sacrifice a few virgins. Now we have to destroy freedom and economies. And it has as much effect on the climate as sacrificing virgins.

    • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
      December 16, 2020 1:02 am

      sacrifice a few virgins
      Ay, there’s the rub.
      We’ve none to sacrifice.

  12. December 15, 2020 12:37 pm

    Excellent video. I would estimate that in Devon, over 90% of agriculture is dedicated to meat production, and it is 100% around where I live. Good luck with persuading the farmers of Devon to support this inane policy. The only crop that grows well here is grass.

    • ROY HARTWELL permalink
      December 15, 2020 1:02 pm

      Philip, my thoughts exactly. Looking out of my cottage window at the agricultural land that surrounds me the possibility of any sort of crop production on the steep slopes around lies in the realms of fantasy. Where farmers have tried to grow crops on steep fields previously used for pasture, the soil has been washed off by rain to fill the drains and culverts of the villages below causing flooding. The only way of using this land for agriculture is for animals. Although some activists might try the re-wilding game, perhaps import a few unicorns?

  13. Broadlands permalink
    December 15, 2020 1:02 pm

    Apparently these dim-bulb activists are unaware that bovines eat plants that have captured and stored CO2 so that leaving their meat and transferring those ‘vegetables’ to humans recycles the CO2 also. The net result is very little, if any effect on the long-term weather…climate. Methane will be released anyhow but from a different source.

  14. JimW permalink
    December 15, 2020 1:03 pm

    I am not surprised or shocked by this, how could I be living through the covid psyops.
    Democracy and anything remotely resembling capitalism as an economic basis for our society is finished. We have entered a new phase of technocracy and constant psyops.
    Facts are redundant, emotions are what matters.
    A few years ago I thought I would not outlive the trends that were apparent over the last 2 decades. But the speed of the change has gone exponential over the last 2/3 years.
    Now I fear I will live through this change and it frightens me. We are in the process of losing what it is to be human, or at least what was perceived to be human, replaced by something for the vast majority that more closely resembles the hive. This is far more of a change in the more individualistic west than will be in the more socially driven east. but change for all nevertheless.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 15, 2020 2:05 pm

      As I read that, JimW, the only societal construct that came to mind – that could be called hive-like – was Chinese. They’ve colonised Africa, are making inroads in Australia and is insinuating itself in Europe. It has now got a good foothold in the USA, courtesy of Biden so I can’t see much future in the UK without A-level Mandarin.

  15. chriskshaw permalink
    December 15, 2020 1:06 pm

    When faced with the harsh reality of the policy, I begin to have self doubt. Does burning FF really cause warming of the planet to an extent that justifies the raw effort and cost? I read all the anti AGW copy I can find and I sneer at the millions of peer reviewed papers and their acknowledgment in the dailies. Am I a raving loony projecting my madness on the alarmists? When theory states we will see increases in temperature in the LT at the equator, and UAHs satellites do not measure supporting data, why is there not a global whack to the forehead followed by “silly me, my bad”??

    • December 16, 2020 8:36 am

      Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will make it a little warmer. There is nothing to justify the enormous cost of the cure that is being imposed on us. CO2 increases will never do anything to us that any civilisation worth the name would have anything to worry about.

      Global warming is real, but mild; it has been exaggerated into apocalypse. The “cure” will be many times worse than the disease, and it won’t cure the disease, unless every other country takes the same medicine. No doubt if that happens (if we reach the hallowed 350 ppm CO2) people will be wondering why there are still hurricanes and floods…

  16. Broadlands permalink
    December 15, 2020 1:25 pm

    Re-listening to the video and looking at some subtitles I noticed that they lied about what NET-zero means. With an NBC reporter in the background: “Net zero mean reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon dioxide.”

    That is not the full definition of NET-zero.

    “Net zero refers to cutting greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and balancing any further releases by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere.”

    It is the last part that is constantly overlooked or ignored. Last year the global release of CO2 was ~40 gigatonnes. Removing that amount by 2050 would mean capturing and storing geologically a bit more that a billion metric tons a year. Not possible. This should be made indelibly clear to politicians and climate change policy makers. Avoiding meat and dairy is trivial by comparison.

  17. MrGrimNasty permalink
    December 15, 2020 1:57 pm

    Listening to BBC radio last night I couldn’t help notice the cognitive dissonance.

    Brexit (deal or no deal it seems) will destroy British meat farming according to the BBC and project-fear reloaded.

    But that’s what the BBC wants climate policy to achieve – Doh!

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      December 15, 2020 4:41 pm

      They can’t even keep their lies straight. The BBC, where truth goes to die.

  18. December 15, 2020 2:11 pm

    108 people in this conference eh?

    What is the significance of 108?
    https://rananader.com/blogs/news/what-is-the-significance-of-108

    108: Yoga’s Sacred Number
    https://wanderlust.com/journal/108-yogas-sacred-number/

    Prayer Beads
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_beads

    Food for thought. 😉

    I guess the thing that most caught my attention (other than the symbolism) was the fact that the UK Parliament has the authority to convene ad-hoc committees made up of average citizens to advise the Parliament? That sounds to me as if they are trying to get around the voting rights of citizens typically exercised in elections by assigning special voting rights to select citizens in order to preempt the voting public’s power(s).

    • sonofametman permalink
      December 15, 2020 9:08 pm

      I don’t see it that way. My view is that they’re using the citizens’ assembly to dodge the responsibility for the decisions.
      “Look, we’re only implementing what the assembly said.”
      It’s a bit like when a company knows what they want to do, but want to be able to blame someone else in case it’s disastrous or unpopular. So they hire a managemnt consultancy, and after spending a wedge on fees, get a report on expensive headed notepaper telling them what they wanted to hear. If it goes belly up, they just point to the report and duck the blame. If it succeeds, they take credit for hiring the consultants.
      Utter scum.

  19. CheshireRed permalink
    December 15, 2020 2:44 pm

    Absolutely positively the ONLY chance we’ll ever have to end this stark-raving madness is to elect the Reform Party.

    I say this not as a RP activist, member or anything else, but solely as an observation of reality.

    EVERY potential UK government-elect party is fully signed-up to this Green madness.
    To stop it, we must remove them from office. It’s as simple as that.

    • December 15, 2020 3:09 pm

      They will choke on their own policies if they get enacted as planned, unless the public and/or industry is willing to tolerate power cuts on a regular basis.

  20. GeoffB permalink
    December 15, 2020 3:17 pm

    I watched some of the first day of the climate assembly live on the youtube feed, the speakers were all committed greens and most were obviously biassed to support their own research. I had to switch off ….. high blood pressure!!!!

    I did try and sign up for a follow up survey as myself….72 year old white male widower living in Newcastle, but it said they had completed their selection. So I tried again using a VPN to make it look like I was in Tunbridge Wells Kent. and this time I was female black, lesbian age 21…straight in, mind you I had to name the local MP to get in. I was able to complete the survey, so there is some preselecting of the respondents. I wonder how much it all cost and how much the speakers were paid. It is also strange that these randomly selected people with unknown intellects and education are considered more qualified than all of us on this forum who have been following the climate change lies for years.

    Geoff B Bsc (Eng). MBA . (Its electrical engineering)

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      December 15, 2020 4:29 pm

      GeoffB – did you document all that you did? If so, well worth sending it to Ben Pile.

      Were they actually asking questions about colour, sexual orientation and so forth?

  21. Ian Wilson permalink
    December 15, 2020 3:59 pm

    So help us, even the NFU are now promoting ‘net zero’. In vain I wrote to them that they are seeking to deny us the beneficial fertiliser of increased CO2 but received a reply from their ;Climate Change Advisor’ that we are seeing more extreme weather, needless to say without any evidence. I have since resigned from the NFU.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      December 15, 2020 4:42 pm

      A new way of being No Effin Use.

  22. Robin Guenier permalink
    December 15, 2020 5:26 pm

    Professor Piers Forster is a member of the Committee on Climate Change. I’ve been having an interesting exchange with him here: https://theconversation.com/for-a-carbon-neutral-uk-the-next-five-years-are-critical-heres-what-must-happen-151708.

    I pointed out to him on Sunday that it was clear from the outcome of Saturday’s ‘Climate Ambition Summit’ that there’s no realistic possibility of the world making the 50% cut in emissions required by the UN (and Alok Sharma). I asked if he agreed that, if this wasn’t resolved by COP-26 (highly unlikely of course), there’d be ‘no point in the UK proceeding with its expensive and potentially damaging net-zero ambition‘. Here’s his response:

    ‘My direct answer is that even if we were the only country decarbonising it would be worth it. Our CCC report estimates that doing so can create jobs and drive economic growth. It will also lead to better air quality, greener spaces and healthier diets and lifestyles with more comfortable homes. Just like 200 years also the UK found great economic advantage from the industrial revolution, we can do this again. … If you read our report on the finances we estimate an economic uplift from doing this. There are very few downsides if we do it right.’

    I find this quite extraordinary: a member of the CCC says that the UK should proceed the net zero project even if we were the only country decarbonising.

    • Barbara permalink
      December 15, 2020 7:42 pm

      ‘More comfortable homes’ where is the evidence that we will have more comfortable homes? – I remember reading we would all have to accept lower temperatures and the wearing of extra cardigans and that the elderly would have to get used to dying from the cold. This from ‘Living Carbon Free’ – People will need to be reassured that the benefits from energy savings and a more comfortable living environment outweigh the costs. There it is again – more comfortable – just see how much manipulating and brainwashing is having to be undertaken with ‘life will be more comfortable’ being proffered regularly. Who dreams this sort of thing up? Thank heavens once again for Paul and his committed band of informed commentators.

      • December 16, 2020 8:47 am

        “More comfortable”… it seems like that is a euphemism for hermetically sealed and a bit damp? Our 110-year-old house is not that well insulated, but it is definitely comfortable.

        The reason for our “leadership” in the climate sphere has previously been to show “moral authority” – to encourage others to jump off the cliff with us. Seems like other countries are not showing enough “ambition”. They’re waiting for us to hit the bottom and shout back up that our legs aren’t broken before they follow us over the edge.

        This is supposed to be a green industrial revolution. But industrial revolutions come about when a better energy source or technology appears. Not when government mandates the use of inferior versions.

    • David V permalink
      December 16, 2020 4:28 pm

      The economic advantage is based on the false assumption that the rest of the world will have to change to CO2 zero when the imagined runaway warming really kicks in. Just imagine the downsides when the climate doesn’t oblige.

  23. richardw permalink
    December 15, 2020 5:50 pm

    In personal relationships, gaslighting (manipulating somebody by creating a false context in which they are placed) is considered to be psychological abuse. Politicalgaslighting, as we are seeing today, is a far more extensive economic and socially grievous form of abuse.

  24. MrGrimNasty permalink
    December 15, 2020 6:22 pm

    HADCRAP5 Met Office magics up even more warming ‘brings into line’ LOL.

  25. December 18, 2020 3:24 am

    The elitist endgame exposed, …in their own words.

  26. December 18, 2020 3:04 pm

    While the Sixth Carbon Budget Reports are still topical, perhaps readers can enlighten me about where the CCC have got some of their maths from with regard to matching all the support/storage means to fill in total intermittent wind and solar failure. For their 2035 figures, the dispatchable means account for 65-70% of estimated peak demand by then. Obtaining this figure is admittedly difficult because they don’t give the correct units for grid batteries and pumped storage hydro, both not continuous and therefore needing to be quoted in Watt hours. They have only used Watts. Not being clear that the wattage given is sustainable over any conceivable lull period, the reader is forced to estimate, which maybe the CCC are aware of, so that they can claim a mistake has been made.
    They are obviously unconcerned that the figures don’t add up, so can someone tell me about the assumptions they might be making here?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: