By Paul Homewood
h/t George Heraghty
Laura Kuenssberg has been giving the kid glove treatment to the whiney Chris Stark:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68863796
At the end of the article, the BBC asks for questions to pose to Claire Coutinho tomorrow.
Have fun!!
Comments are closed.
 | Gamecock on President of European Central… |
 | stewgreen on BBC Complaint–Ozone Hole |
| stewgreen on BBC Complaint–Ozone Hole |
 | Kestrel27 on President of European Central… |
 | David Wojick on Economic damage from climate c… |
 | Mewswithaview on President of European Central… |
 | alexei on President of European Central… |
 | Gordon Hughes on Economic damage from climate c… |
 | gezza1298 on President of European Central… |
| gezza1298 on Economic damage from climate c… |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The real question is why hasn’t Stark been charged with Gross Malfeasance in Public Office and held to account for his barefaced lies and the damage he has caused to the economy, to the public at large and, indeed, to the environment.
Bring it on.
Yhe CCC seems a bit top heavy with Scottish members, could it be the SNP off-loaded its idiots onto the “Statutory Body”,? Chris Stark has been Chief Executive of the Climate Change Committee since April 2018. His previous role was Director of Energy and Climate Change in the Scottish Government, leading the development of Scotland’s approach to emissions reduction and the accompanying energy system transition. Of course, having taken his eye off the ball, Scotland is now realising just what a ludicrous idea NET ZERO actually is, and are rolling back on their targets. Time to repeal that stupid act of parliament!
They aren’t rolling back anything. They are just scared of lawsuits and have no money. Politicians are starting to realise all their arrogant boasts and targets are just easy ways for activists to attack them when they fail.
Who is paying the activists? No-one can be that thick without some ulterior motive! (Jim (Noel) Dale excepted of course!)
Various wealthy tax free foundations, Bloomberg, Hewlett (Hewlett Packard) etc. who often then profit from the policies and subsidies, a nice scam.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/16/the-amazing-tale-of-how-three-billionaires-plunged-the-world-into-climate-catastrophism/
He’s now off to cause more mayhem as CEO of the Carbon Trust!
Sounds like there may be more money in that! I’m sure some credits can be diverted into worthy bank accounts!
The original principle was that costs incurred now of mitigating climate change were smaller than potentual costs incurred in the future if we did nothing. Since then costs of mitigation have risen hugely and continue to rise. Yet not only has there been no cap placed on those costs, they have become an end in themselves. Why?
All based on a false premise. So-called climate virtue signalling is just a bad joke at the expense of the whole country and everyone else’s country too.
I don’t know about questions to ask her but I would just like to know why she thinks ‘carbon emissions’ are, as she just said in a news report, ‘pollution’.
Yes indeed, and like so many others : that’s all they can come out with…. and the sheople graze it.
NOw I’ve no idea what she said today, but in this Blog, where are the questions?
‘The sheeple…’. Exactly. I used to struggle with the term, ‘gaslighting’, but now I know: as I have often said, there is good reason why TPTB chose to demonise CO2 as ‘carbon’, which is black. They are pandering to the mindless who can be relied on to hate anything ‘black’. It’s also insulting to sceptics who know that CO2 is not a pollutant (which, of course, plays to their need to keep us arguing over petty technicalities. Guilty as charged…)
I asked Kuensberg to ask Coutinho the question she was unable to answer in her reply to my similar letter some weeks ago.
” Please ask Claire Coutinho how she can justify spending £20 Billion, an amount that would build 40 new £500 Million Hospitals, on Carbon Capture and Storage, capturing Co2, a trace element that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere of which Man only contributes 10%, and sending it through pipes to caves under the North Sea. Where can we find the data used and the cost/benefit.”
Of course the question was never asked by Kuenssberg.
Yesterday, in the US Senate they were asking Coutinho’s counterpart about the Trillions of dollars committed to the Green Net Zero agenda, and she was asked what difference it would make to anything if Net Zero was actually achieved.
She did not understand the question, despite it being clarified three times ………..
Yes …… Really …… It is on YouTube.
Frank
I remember you saying you had written to Coutinho via your MP. Is your MP Conservative? Mine is Labour, do you think I would still be able to write to her via my MP.
My MP is Conservative, but I would think it would be even more relevant writing to the mad Ed Milliband, who may be taking over at the next election. Ask if he would carry on with CCS at the same cost and justify it.
My MP is Conservative, and likely to be one of few to retain his seat.
I used to write on occasion about matters of concern, but it soon became very apparent MPs are merely overpaid stenographers, who take what you write and send it elsewhere and after a few months get a reply from someone in a bigger office who knows just as little who tells him what I wrote, and nothing else of value. He then writes back to me telling me this.
650 truly pointless drains on society, keeping the entire media industry permanently excited.
frankobaysio I will try your suggestion of writing to Ed Milliband, but as you say he is mad.
When I copied part of the letter I had received from my MP in my reply to you yesterday, I realised I had copied his second reply to me after I had complained that the first, which I received within a couple of hours, was a standardised response. This was part of the original letter:
“While it is true that carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are currently around 400 parts per million (ppm), it is important to understand the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate system. While the percentage of man-made CO2 emissions may be around 4% of the total, it is the overall increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, including CO2 and other gases like methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), that contributes to the warming of our planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which consists of thousands of scientists from around the world, has conducted extensive research and concluded that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of the recent increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
This is what we are up against. The second reply, received after a week or more, did seem to be more personalised.
I recognise that standard ‘template’ replay as one from my own MP, who now refuses to answer me. Seems being questioned about the complete idiocy and fallacy of climate change and net zero is just too much for the govt lacky leading ‘transport decarbonisation’ (remember the Yes Minister ‘Transport Supremo’? 🙂 ).
(sorry, “reply”)
concluded that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of the recent increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
As “Cobden” recently posted:
A concise response is that the IPCC, who’s remit is to compile evidence of anthropogenic climate change, has in its latest Assessment Report (AR6), concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for heavy precipitation and floods. It’s just weather.
I’ve download AR6. To my shame, it’s unreadable at over 2000 pages long, perhaps that’s the intention?
When responding to such propaganda the first objective is to damage or destroy its credibility thus opening the whole piece up to challenge. From the above extract this is likely the best point to attack…
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which consists of thousands of scientists from around the world, has conducted extensive research…
Point out that the author appears to know little about the subject as they incorrectly state that the IPCC has “conducted extensive research”. The IPCC’s website clearly states that it “does not conduct its own research.”…
‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
Micky R
Report (AR6), concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for heavy precipitation and floods. It’s just weather.
No mention of this in the media is there?
No mention of this in the media is there?
If you mean “Does the medjia mention that it’s just weather ? ” then my answer is “Not to my knowledge.”, although I would hope that Mike Graham and/or Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV would mention it, perhaps with reference to AR6.
I can’t easily find the reference within AR6, but then I’ve barely skimmed through the 2000 pages.
Tice (Reform UK) should be all over this after the pasting he received on Question Time.
If the believers prevail then non-believers might be banned from main stream medjia
Jim Dale (weather guesser) on twitter: ” Given where we are & where we are going, I now believe that manmade climate deniers should be banned from mainstream UK media & that a future government should legislate to make such misinformation a crime akin to racism, punishable by fines & jail.“
It is already punishable with £15,000 fines and Prison up to 12 months, in the clause inserted in the Energy Bill passed through the Commons in November 2023.
These are penalties to be imposed if you do not confirm to Government Energy Efficiency requirements in your property.
Shamefully only ten MP’s voted against it.
Indeed not…
‘What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather’ [July 2023]:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about
Following the pathetic interview with Chris Stark, I wrote to Kuenssberg thus.
‘Miss Kuenssberg
When you interviewed Chris Stark from the Committee on Climate Change, not once did you ask him to justify any of his generalisations.
There should have been a request for data, costs, analysis, and consequences.
The most important question is never asked by anyone from the BBC.
“Should Net Zero be achieved, what would be the benefit, and what would be the reduction in World temperatures.”
Is anyone else on this Forum asking questions, writing to the BBC, their MP etc when nonsense is prevailing?
I sometimes think I am on my own…..!
frankobaysio, I think you may be one of the few on your own, sadly.
For our part, we were not taught how to write such letters…. it was more a culture of doing things and getting things done in a practical way. Locally as a rural community, we are still very much in the vernacular, so to speak. The Dour Highlander ? … well there are historical reasons for this and all combined, in this current epoch, we are easily triggered …. same thing happening in other parts of rural UK ? Just too busy doing what has to be done at local level. Just a pity that urbanites have taken such a big jump ahead … Wish it would have been much bigger … into the fire! Yes really. For his part, Gramps says that the State educated him but did not give him a job … and when he became successful, they taxed him. Now, the State wants to take back MORE than they ever gave him. As he says ” too poor to die” and it really is a Generational Thing … who else creates all this nonsense. Huh, we have the Ferry Fiasco too: LNG powering the new Diesel Ferry … just listen to what the Boat owner has to say about it ( Daft OLD Codger ) “An underestimation of the complexity, the degree of difficulty of the installation, the lack of available expert knowledge and qualified resources in the UK in relation to marine LNG systems, has disappointingly contributed to futher slippage in the progress that we have been able to make in the last few weeks, and consequently our previously proposed schedule.” A simple country yokel / ploughman could have told them that.
frankobaysio - I have written to my MP about this nonsense. This is part of his reply:
” I have taken note of your view that man-made carbon dioxide does not significantly impact the climate. While there are differing perspectives on this matter, it is crucial to consider a wide range of scientific evidence and research in understanding the complexities of climate change.
The issue of climate change is one that cannot be ignored, and the Net Zero policy is among the measures being pursued to combat the challenges posed by global warming. As we have recently witnessed record-high temperatures in Europe, the impacts on wildlife and the environment have been evident, further highlighting the importance of addressing climate change in a comprehensive manner.”
Well done for having a go, at least they know we are on to them. His answer as usual is non specific, so we have to screw them down. I am formulating a FOI letter to Coutinho asking for specifics following her drivel to me that the Committee on Climate Change have said “it is a necessity not a choice”. Not much Science there.
i will post it here when done in the next few days.
Oh dear. Coutinho has replied (BBC): Our record on climate change is strong, says energy secretary Claire Coutinho – BBC News
I would ask her, “What does climate change mean?”