David King Unhappy With Democracy
February 28, 2022
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
David King is sticking his nose in again!
From the Telegraph:
“Each individual nation is run by governments that are working for their own communities and that kind of selfishness doesn’t fit this challenge.”
Yes, it’s called democracy.
Presumably King would prefer that we were governed on CCP lines.
29 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Even the Russians sussed him out.
David King has completely forgotten that a government’s and its leader’s FIRST priority is the defence and welfare of its OWN citizens, as decided upon BY those citizens, not him. Considering the UK’s emissions are only 1% of global, and that man adds only ~3% of the total of 0.04% of atmospheric CO2, i.e. the UK is responsible for 0.000012% of a gas that doesn’t control temperature or climate, he’s making some very wild and unsupportable claims. He also needs to go back to the dictionary and look up the word “equitable”.
Or better still? ‘Idiot!’
A troublemaking idiot?
There are many who want to replace democracy with a global technocracy. We have seen that in action over the last 2 years and is a driver behind the CC movement.
A world government by the UN was always their aim hence claiming a ‘global crisis’ requiring a global response.
Coming from one source there is no voice of decent permitted . . . No voice from opposition benches . . . no critical analysis from fringe parties . . . These people from the IPCC, Scientifically would have been standing in line outside the Vatican ready to sign the arrest warrant for Galileo and his views that the Sun was the center of the Universe . . .
“There’s absolutely no guarantee that we will recover from the impacts of climate change unless we all begin to work together . . . .”
So, if we all work together, there is a guarantee?
And, frankly, I wish the U.S. would work for its own citizens. America first.
“In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, place the oxygen mask on yourself before assisting others.”
If the U.S. doesn’t take care of itself, it will be unable to assist others.
If we all pull together as a team.
The sentiments remind me of the Pink Floyd song, Have a Cigar.
We call it Riding the Gravy Train!
A yes the ‘Gravy Train’ . . . ‘Carbon credits’ . . . ‘Carbon Offsets’ . . . .
A one Trillion dollar annual ‘Scam’ . . . Brought to ALL the good and well intentioned students and profiteers of ‘The Big Green Propaganda Machine’.
The Truth turns my stomach into knots . . .
https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
https://www.academia.edu/71021345/All_Electricity_Even_Renewables_Poisons_Planet_Earth
My Thoughts . . .
Exactly what impacts of climate change do we need to recover from? The only impacts I am aware of are from policies to stop global warming that driven to their extreme will make most of us Colder Darker and Poorer.
Agreed !!
https://www.academia.edu/49676862/Social_Engineering_Environmentalism_and_Globalization_A_New_World_Order
It’s the first time that I have read that Sir David King is a climate scientist, let alone a leading climate scientist.
From Wikipedia:
“Sir David Anthony King FRS FRSC FInstP [2] (born 12 August 1939)[1] is a South African-born British chemist, academic, and head of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. ”
An ex-chemist, and clearly no longer even a scientist, as the word “Crisis” is antithetical to the true nature of science. Just imagine the dismay that would be created by the good news that the climate is no longer changing.
Yes and what about “INDEPENDENT expert”? On that basis Putin must be described as a pacifist.
Might it not be wise to await for an “impact” from “climate change” before agonising about how we might “recover”, whether “guaranteed” (by whom?) or not?
Or perhaps he has it in mind to use defoliants to combat the Global Greening? Only clear “impact” so far…
It is the “impact” of malicious GangGreen Charlatans like David King that concerns me.
The Green Blob has much to fear from “populism”, i.e. voters demanding reliable, low-cost energy, hence why the BBC and others have deployed their propaganda against dissenting voices, having ramped it up over the last few years against covid “deniers”.
Anyone nearly choked having seen the latest BBC propaganda film about being 100 years old featuring numerous wankerati and scum? I only caught it while watching the excellent and woke free French crime drama La Promesse. And how refreshing that each episode just got on with it as opposed to wasting time going on about the previous episode. Some programmes can go on for 2 minutes telling you what you already know.
Lots of useful idiots are quoted by the credulous media, like the Nat Trust environmental spokesman who said that with increased effects of man made global warming, Holm Oaks which were presently restricted to the South coast of England would expand Northward! All those Holm Oaks I saw on holiday in North Wales in 1975 must have been made of plastic!
Let’s face it, there is only one true cure for climate change: Communism.
Anything less will not be enough.
Then, we would need to find a cure for communism…
No, no, Harry!
Didn’t you get the fax?
THIS time communism will certainly usher in Utopia, (as promised every last time it was introduced.) The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” at long last!
And there are already hundreds of millions of corpses that bear evidence of previous brave attempts.
The IPCC cannot be considered to be serious representatives of the climate of the future when they do not allow any dissenting voice in their midst, a policy which is akin to the Kremlin agreeing to peace talks provided no one from the Ukraine is invited
David KIng was Chief Scientist to UK government, but an upwardly mobile academic for hire chemist from memory, a supposed scientist who sold his soul for honours and now shills for elites. Sad man.
His deceit lends false authority to the observably false in fact nonsense of UN “climate science”, that attributes natural change to human effects by using false assumptions regarding how much of observed change is natural, as geological record tells us.
Sp UN OPCC science is dependent on manipulated models they made up to predict problems that are not seen in natural fact, and the imposition of what he did know were massively overpriced renewable energy solutions, unworkable at any significant scale, was created by the the UN supported by global WEF/Club of Rome elites to re engineer global economics, not change climate change. He has become just one more of the UN IPCC politicians, not scientists, who promote their political claims that even their own scientific reports do not support in fact. The Earth’s planetary climate is actually controlled by dominant oceanic response to sea surface temperature change, and the clouds that are a consequence, not greenhouse gasses which are a small modification to the the lapse rate determined by the Barometric formulae, real physics climatologists know, not models. THis massive negative feedback to any change has kept the planet stable through real major events for 500 Million years, through many global climates, ina. narrow range of a few degrees, without tipping. The very concept of tipping points from a small amount of CO2 whose effects are already nearly saturated is unsupportable nonsense, particularly because any small effect is negated by the natural natural oceanic feedback. Hence the change we observe today is the same level of change that has been observed to have occured cyclically and naturally in the observational record of the last few thousand years. Unnatural change is not happening. It’s a lie. No action is needed to change what nature is doing and humans are not, in science fact. But don’t tell the chief “scientist”. He’s paid to claim otherwise.
The people who benefit from this “climate action” we don’t need, to our massive cost, such as China, and other developing economies, are emitting all the CO2 that doesn’t actually cause observed change on the facts of. observation, not the UK. Why would us reducing emissions when they are massively increasing them unabated even matter? Just the additional CO2 from new CHinese coal fired power stations planned will be close to our total emissions from generation, for example.
So the point is, given the actual science deceit King supports for his masters, as regards climate AND energy, national democracy is an essential, but still not necessarily effective, check on such impositios, led by the unelected global elites of the UN/WEF, that include UK participants. All for their own profit and power, long term to deliver UN Agenda 21. If you never read it, you should, to discover what “sustainability” really means when the UN/WEF use it.
National government in a real democracy is a safeguard against the machinations of unaccountable UN /WEF elites. They hate that. The UN is more comfortable with CHinese/Russian style of government with absolute control of the actions of the governed.
The UN and global elites of the WEF would rather we had unaccountable World government that they pull the strings of through national governments they effectively control. That “Sir” David has chosen to betray his science and his country to shill for the UN and its pseudo science frauds simply shows what a treacherous, self serving, science denying worm he is.
He could check the science and see how wrong he is in the facts of observation, the only test of real science. He instead chooses to promote an actual deceit on the facts of science he claims to know. So he is not a scientist any more, just one more politician lying from authority for the global elites, at the avoidable cost of the UK people and economy.
So countries doing what is best for them is absolutely not a problem, given what the UN would have them do..
In most cases governments, eventually, tend to prefer the scientific reality as regards adequate, affordable, energy supply for electricity, transport and heating, and the observed reality of climate change versus the modellers claims that never happen – because the models they guess based on political agendas are serially wrong on the fact of observation,
Which should nation states best act upon?. What is happening and what works, or what King claims is happening, and isn’t per the science, and what the supposed cures are, which they aren’t, as any engineer with a basic degree could explain to this rather inadeqaute academic chemist for hire. Energy density and intermittency rule out the energy sources only adequate to support feudal 3rd World economies. King is a disgrace to the real deterministic science he denies for his supper, which he probably never understood in the first place.
Well said sir . . .
All the throngs supporting the the deceptions and the lies disseminated by ‘The Big Green Propaganda Machine’ need an awakening . . . The Media must be brought on board to accomplish this . . .
The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject is, Explosive!
You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole. Environmentalism is a relatively New Science and it is being truly tested for the first time. If Climategate starting in 2009 is any example, we can only imagine what is yet to come. When that one stone gets overturned proving collusion and willful deception. The un-scientific foundations that have been supporting the Environmental Movement since its inception will render it . . .null.
Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization and The New Social Construct. For they are ‘Brothers-in-Arms’, so to speak.
Who wants to be the ONE to open Pandora’s Box? . . . It would be like pulling Hans Brinker’s finger from the Dyke or Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg . . .
It is up to us to ‘overturn that one stone’ and end this stream of lies an deception . . .
Yes. Agree. There are people doing this. Otmust be done at a politcal level because the science has been corrupted by UN andh givwernment money to support the cinsensus they created and sustains them. REalyity is nit tjeir plane, what pays them and gives theme a reason to eb is. They carelss ig f the eimpacts of their lies on the people made to pay for making things worse in fact.
There are books of course. LOts. MOst recently climate and energy experts Steve Koonin pointed out that NONE of the UN claims of impending disaster are supported by the UN IPCC;s own scientific reports. The alarmist statements are simply fabricated by politicians who say that’s what rthe reports say when they in fact clearly do not.
The Hokey Stick Delusion, Elaine Dewar’s CLoak if Green on Maurice STring and how the UN plot was hatched and rolled out, also Donna la FRamboise on IPCC “science”, and many more books by people educated to understand….. like Koonin
………also the fact that if this was a real problem why are they enforcing weak intermittent feudal energy solutions on us to “solve” it, which they self evidently can’t, when we have all you can eat zero CO2 nuclear that can, and needs no lifetime subsidies?
Simple question. Obvious answer. UN IPCC climate action is not about climate change it cannot actually affect anyway, its about transferring welath from WEst to East by making energy rationed and unaffordable in the WEst. . We COULD get WEst and East up to the highest and safest levels of enrgy use hence prosperity. That’s because this is a global elite agenda, they stay rich either way, but gain more power and wealth by the regressive approach they created at the UN. Along with agenda 21..
“Each individual nation is run by governments that are working for their own communities …”
If only they were! 🙂
Actually, I’m far from convinced that democracy is the problem behind the failure of government’s around the world to co-operate actively regarding climate change. In western democracies like the UK, leaders are rushing to commit economic suicide in the name of climate change, but the people are given no democratic choice about this, since pretty much all political parties are agreed.
The countries responsible for huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions but doing little about it are not functioning democracies, by and large – China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.
Of course, this failure on the part of countries whose leaders prioritise their own economic interests is the main reason why we in the west are crazy to take unilateral action, which can’t make any difference to climate change, even assuming that collective action was necessary and could achieve anything.
@brianicatt-thanks for your excellent precis-good stuff.