By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Ward
Excellent speech at the Oxford Union:
https://twitter.com/Notalotofpeopl1/status/1615019967782453249
Comments are closed.
 | Michael Rennoldson on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
 | Citizen K on Sales of new petrol motorcycle… |
| Citizen K on Sales of new petrol motorcycle… |
 | climanrecon on Sales of new petrol motorcycle… |
 | gezza1298 on Sales of new petrol motorcycle… |
| gezza1298 on Sales of new petrol motorcycle… |
| gezza1298 on Sales of new petrol motorcycle… |
 | Phillip Bratby on Storm Ravages World’s La… |
| Phillip Bratby on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
| gezza1298 on Taxpayer-backed net zero group… |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Really good speech.
Will it wake many up?
Hmmmm.
A brilliant and moving speech.. and many among the wingeing wokers will stop and think again, I am sure.
But it’s the quiet majority, caught in the middle, who need to see this. They represent the reality of public opinion. We must all circulate this as far and wide as we can.
Unfortunately this is on Twitter and I don’t use that. I rarely listen to the goings on of the woke upper-crust student population anyway. If the speaker had something worthwhile to say it should be to the people not the wokes.
You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo
Thanks for the link. Amusing to hear a nice attack on wokism.
You can also access Twitter without an account (like me to the great relief of my children and grandchildren in time no doubt). Agree with you absolutely on avoiding ‘social media’.
The main focus of the speech is that a reduction in CO2 emissions just ain’t going to happen, mostly for economic and technological reasons.
The other side of the coin is the scientific hypothesis that it doesn’t need to happen, because warming is not as much as advertised, and is a net benefit. This hypothesis needs to acquire the respectability that it deserves, at present it is largely banished from the MSM and social media.
It is striking how such banishment applies to several other respectable and important scientific hypotheses, such as diseases and death induced by mRNA vaccines, and flawed dietary guidelines.
He claimed Britain was responsible for 2% of global emissions when the figure circulating until very recently has been 1% and also failed to mention that Britain has allegedly done more to reduce emissions than other western nations. Though witty and entertaining, the inference in his presentation seemed to accept the view that these emissions WERE the cause of climate change.
Yes you are correct. However it may be prudent to allow the gullible a way out whilst saving face. You and I know they have been fooled -but if we want to win people over and start to educate folk ,we have to take the victories where we can. For the time being …
… maybe ?
Did you read what Piers Corbyn said to Oxford Council. Humbly stated and then their spokesman’s pompous reply ?
I’ll post it again, just incase …
Piers Corbyn tells councillors ‘climate change doesn’t exist’
29th November 2022
By Anna Colivicchi
JEREMY Corbyn’s brother told Oxfordshire County Council it should scrap its plans for six ‘traffic filters’ during a meeting today.
Councillor Liz Leffman, who leads the council, allowed climate change denier Piers Corbyn to speak at a cabinet meeting discussing the measures this morning.
The council voted in favour of trialling the measures from January 2024 as it said they will “reduce traffic, make bus journeys faster and make walking and cycling safer.”
Mr Corbyn, who is a weather forecaster and is known his rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change, said: “I have spoken around the world on climate and solar matters and I’m here, councillors, to convince you of two things.
“One, that man-made climate change does not exist and secondly, that being the case you should drop all of these green measures and other green measures that you are doing on other committees.”
The point is that the basis of these documents are false – man-made climate change does not exist and if you don’t believe me, look at the sky. You should have a special meeting to discuss whether man-made climate change exists or not.”
Responding to Mr Corbyn’s claims, councillor Andrew Gant, the council’s cabinet member for highways management, said: “Mr Corbyn said climate change is not real – this council has formally adopted a position that climate change is real.
“Mr Corbyn you are wrong, we are right.”
Haha! Very convincing argument – ““Mr Corbyn you are wrong, we are right.”
Because we say so! Back to the nursery …….
How many on this council?
How many are physicists, geologists, or similar,
with training about how Earth works?
Cue Einstein – If any of them have one fact etc.
Corbyn reported as stating ” man-made climate change does not exist” ,
As frequently occurs, this is twisted to:
“Mr Corbyn said climate change is not real – this council has formally adopted a position that climate change is real.”
“Mr Corbyn said climate change is not real ….” Well clearly the councillor was not listening . Piers Corbyn clearly stated “MAN-MADE climate change does not exist” (my capitalisation)
Clearly said councillor is as thick as sh1t.
Yes 1% more like it I believe. Kisin adopted the stance of accepting the Climate Catastrophists’ arguments to make his point. Pretty sure he does not accept that view.
And, BTW, I envy Mr Kisin’s wit and evident brainpower so much!
NS I hope you are correct, I am not sure.
‘Though witty and entertaining, the inference in his presentation seemed to accept the view that these emissions WERE the cause of climate change.‘
I don’t regard that as a problem. The net zero policy is easily shown to be absurd – and obviously adherence to an absurd policy isn’t going to defeat a ‘climate emergency’. Making that relatively simple point is all that’s necessary.
In contrast, challenging the notion of a climate emergency would be a serious unforced error – getting you sucked into the ghastly world of climate change politics where debate is not allowed and where you’d be dismissed as a ‘climate denier’ and therefore unworthy of serious attention.
BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, dated June 22, confirms that the UK share of CO2 emissions globally in 2021 was a tine fraction over 1%. Yes! f the whole UK were to sink below the rising seawater tomorrow, the effect on Global weather, even if CO2 emissions are the cause of Climate Change, would be too small to measure!
No … he said let’s just assume for the sake of this argument that you are right. Big, big difference
I agree with you. It needs to be emphasised that the 16 parts per million (about 4%) of man made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cannot possibly change the climate. If the they think it can, why doesn’t the other 96%.
I enjoyed it.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention Paul & Dave.
I will forward it to others for sure.
I thought that Gerard Hoffnung’s speech was better.
This was also reported in detail on Fox News – the primary platform for climate change deniers!
Yes you are correct. However it may be prudent to allow the gullible a way out whilst saving face. You and I know they have been fooled -but if we want to win people over and start to educate folk ,we have to take the victories where we can. For the time being …
… maybe ?
Did you read what Piers Corbyn said to Oxford Council. Humbly stated and then their spokesman’s pompous reply ?
I’ll post it again, just incase …
Piers Corbyn tells councillors ‘climate change doesn’t exist’
29th November 2022
By Anna Colivicchi
JEREMY Corbyn’s brother told Oxfordshire County Council it should scrap its plans for six ‘traffic filters’ during a meeting today.
Councillor Liz Leffman, who leads the council, allowed climate change denier Piers Corbyn to speak at a cabinet meeting discussing the measures this morning.
The council voted in favour of trialling the measures from January 2024 as it said they will “reduce traffic, make bus journeys faster and make walking and cycling safer.”
Mr Corbyn, who is a weather forecaster and is known his rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change, said: “I have spoken around the world on climate and solar matters and I’m here, councillors, to convince you of two things.
“One, that man-made climate change does not exist and secondly, that being the case you should drop all of these green measures and other green measures that you are doing on other committees.”
The point is that the basis of these documents are false – man-made climate change does not exist and if you don’t believe me, look at the sky. You should have a special meeting to discuss whether man-made climate change exists or not.”
Responding to Mr Corbyn’s claims, councillor Andrew Gant, the council’s cabinet member for highways management, said: “Mr Corbyn said climate change is not real – this council has formally adopted a position that climate change is real.
“Mr Corbyn you are wrong, we are right.”
I posted it 3 days ago on the Skidmore article !
Yes – and you got promoted 😉
But but I got trolled too !
Konstantine hosts a you tube channel called ‘Triggernometry’. Worth watching as he and his partner have very frank discussions with guests about todays world problems.
The Cheshire West and Chester Council website has a dept for ‘climate emergency’.
We’re doomed!
Thanks to Robin I was able to watch it, also not being a Twitter member. I agree with the others that his problem was he accepts the premise that man-made CO2 is the underlying problem and some sort of technology can make it disappear. The entire carbon capture and storage industry exists solely because of that premise. It is interesting, however, that more of what they capture is used for secondary oil recovery than is buried to “save the planet”.
Apparently Birmingham is now several years into a climate emergency. There is no visible effect of this, even the canal levels are not rising! A woke council squandering money is the only symptom of the crisis.
I thought this was an outstanding speech.
He carefully didn’t try to tell the audience that ‘climate change is natural, and we have nothing to do with it’, because I think his speech would have died there and then.
But he did get across to them how little the UK emissions matter in the grand scheme of things, how poor people across the world care more about them and their children living decent lives, and what young people in the UK should REALLY be doing about it, instead of picturing themselves as ‘victims’ and whinging so much. Kudos to the chap.
Well said Mal. I very much agree that, if you’re serious about communicating the message that Net Zero is a dangerous absurdity, it’s important to do so without trying to show that there isn’t an emergency. And it’s so simple to do so: the UK’s Net Zero policy is obviously an absurdity even if we are facing a climate emergency.
Robin et al, he starts by explaining let’s pretend that global warming is real just for the day. Im paraphrasing obviously but it places emphasis in the right place and beautifully made it personal and hearfelf. I think the whole thing was beautifully spliced together and nicely framed etc. i too wish i was so intellectually endowed.
“I thought this was an outstanding speech.”
Me too.
Well put, Mal. Yes, this was a clever way of getting a message across, rather than just saying – you’re all wrong, even though he didn’t get into the non-existence of climate change.
The world is over 80% fuel powered and the needle on that is barely moving. So much for climate botheration.
OK, but who won? And did he get put alive?
The entirety of the debate was interesting. The motion was carried.
Thank you.
He did preface his remarks on climate by saying that for the purpose of debate he would argue on the assumption that climate models were true. Before he introduced the topic he had pointed out that woke culture prevented the examination of all sides of an argument and attempting to establish a better approximation to truth. He had implied that he did not believe the models, but in his allotted 10 minutes he did not have time for a major digression on the science which few of them would understand or be willing to consider anyway.
I think it is the right approach in dealing with those who adhere to climate religion. Attacking their axiomatic fundamental tenets of belief simply causes them to close their minds.
More difficult to deal with are those who consider climate fear merely to be the device to destroy Western civilization on the ground that it is a hobgoblin that gullible populations will believe. They need have no real belief in climate disaster. They are only concerned with using propaganda lies to achieve their Marxist Malthusian ends. To that extent, it serves them to profess belief with fervour. They can only really be dealt with by revolution removing them from positions of power. We can only hope that when the time comes revolution will be as bloodless as possible.
At the moment the most likely path is that progressive destruction of Western civilization will occur, enabling Chinese global hegemony and turning us into low grade slaves – Deltas. Ultimately that is unstable, and the Chinese new empire will collapse, as empires do. Eventually a new, enlightened civilization will emerge, but they may first have to reinvent the wheel.
Oxford Union debates are at least as much about developing rhetorical skills as they are about the substance of the topic chosen for discussion. Konstantin gave them a splendid lesson in this so the undergraduates would be able to go out into the world better equipped to make a good fist of arguing black is white about any topic that happens to crop up.
Comedian Kisen missed the two MOST important facts about global warming that applies to the UK.
A slightly warmer climate — mainly TMIN in the colder months of the year, is VERY GOOD NEWS for the UK. And also good news for many other nations at similar and higher latitudes.
And more CO2 in the air is VERY GOOD NEWS for C3 photosynthesis plants everywhere — about 90% of 300,000 plant species are C3.
How can anyone from the UK talk about climate change without mentioning the 100% good news for the UK? The only possible excuse is the person is ignorant about climate change in the UK.
This guy is an amusing speaker, but his arguments are pitiful and lack logic:
Starting with the assumption that there is a climate emergency is stupid beyond belief if your goal is to refute claims of a coming climate emergency, which have been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report.
The argument that poor people are not interested in climate change is incomplete. Reality is that at least 7 billion people live in nations that could not care less about Nut Zero. Not just the poor people in those nations.
The argument that Great Britain doesn’t matter because its CO2 emissions are a small percentage of the world’s CO2 emissions lacks logic. ( I’ve seen claims ranging from 1% to 3%). Most of the 195 nations in the world could make the same claim. The claim is irrelevant when deciding if reducing CO2 emissions are the right thing to do.
Similar flawed logic could be used to justify shoplifting a $20 item — Tell the judge after you are caught: “$20 is just a tiny percentage of the retail theft at the store in a full year, so it doesn’t matter/”. . Same flawed logic.
Summar: An amusing speaker with an incompetent message.
Poor arguments thecliffclavenoffinance:
1. The reality is that, even if the alarmists’ claims are 100% valid, the UK’s Net Zero policy is an absurdity: it would not reduce global emissions and would be a disaster for the UK’s economy and citizens. The overriding priority must be to get that message across. If that can be achieved without being sucked into the ghastly world of climate science activism – where debate is not allowed and where you’d be dismissed as a ‘climate denier’ – so much the better.
2. Kisen’s goal was not to refute claims of a coming climate emergency but to show that the UK’s policy is nonsense. He did that admirably.
3. As for poor people, Kisen again made the point admirably: President Xi is only too aware that to stay in power he must alleviate poverty and give everyone in China a decent standard of living (by providing access to reliable energy). He made the point that, as well as poor people, most people (i.e. your 7 billion) want prosperity and economic growth.
4. The fact is that the UK is the source of less than 1% (0.89%) of global emissions is important and relevant. The challenge (for the activists) is that most major non-Western countries – countries that are the source of over 75% of CO2 emissions – do not regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions; they are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. That’s why global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. With such a tiny share of emissions, a UK reduction however large cannot not change that.
Summary: an amusing and competent speaker.
I suppose Mr, Guenler and I completely disagree on the value of the speech.
It is possible that he is right, and I am wrong, but that is nowhere near the top of my list of possibilities.
If there was a real climate emergency, it would benefit the world for every nation to reduce CO2 emissions. We should all be in this effort together with no exceptions. A few nations should not be expected to do “the heavy lifting” while every other nation does nothing
The claim that the UK does not matter because it only emits a small percentage of total emissions is very flawed logic (aka clapterap).
All nations matter if there was a real climate emergency.
Almost every nation in the world, out 0f 195, could use the same “Our CO2 emissions are too small to matter” excuse, and then expect China, US, India, Russia, Japan and Germany to do ALL the CO2 emissions reductions by themselves.
By failing to understand this situation will never happen, Mr. Guenler is impossible to debate.
The climate change debate must start with the conclusion that there is no climate emergency now and the wrong predictions of a climate emergency since 1979 have been claptrap.
The actual climate in the UK has improved since the 1970s, the opposite of the global predictions.
The rest of a speech must support that conclusion. One good way is to read a long list of failed environmental predictions of doom (they have been 100% wrong).
The conclusion would be to define climate change as a 43 year old prediction of climate doom … an imaginary emergency that never shows up.
And to remind people they have been living with climate change for every year of their life. Ask them to write a list of all the bad things that climate change has dome to them. The result will be a blank piece of paper.
‘The claim that the UK does not matter because it only emits a small percentage of total emissions is very flawed logic’
Not so. In the context of the UK’s Net Zero policy (the subject of Konstantine Kisin’s speech) it matters a great deal as it demonstrates what a pointless policy it is. Please try to understand: he wasn’t addressing the overall question as to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem, i.e. it wasn’t engaged in ‘the climate change debate’. Had he been doing so, your points might have been valid. But he wasn’t.