The UK government’s climate intransigence–Ben Pile
By Paul Homewood
h/t Russell Hicks
Ben Pile’s rebuttal of the government’s response to the petition to repeal the Climate Change Act:
Earlier this year, a petition on the UK government’s website called for the repeal of the 2008 Climate Change Act and Net Zero targets. It argued that allowing only “one side only of a two-sided scientific debate is not an acceptable basis for significant legislation that could have major impacts of the UK’s economy and citizens”. The petition reached the 10,000 signatures required for the government to respond, which it has now done.
This post is a rebuttal to the government’s response, and I’m publishing it as a free Substack article, hoping that it will cause the government to re-think its reply (unlikely), and to persuade more people that they need to sign it.
Read the full article here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This is a well thought out document, makes good points, but it will just be
“Do not confuse me with the facts my mind is made up” from the PTB, they have too many fingers in the subsidy pie, too many mediocre academics, free money for pie in the sky projects, fusion, carbon (dioxide) capture, green hydrogen, lithium mining in Cornwall/Weardale. The gravy train is unstoppable, and soon we will be the only country in Europe to vote in a LEFT wing government, it is going to get a lot worse when Ed Miliband gets the purse strings.
Climatic conditions have always varied over all timescales and all regions. Nothing can change that, adaptations are the only realistic option.
The government falls back on the non-scientific phrase “mainstream scientific consensus” to justify the CCA and Net Zero. They (the civil servants who write this nonsense) are truly ignorant of science and engineering.
And the truly ignorant blob have only one defence mechanism when challenged; to double down on their stupidity
Yes indeed, but heard a “new one” yesterday: not doubling down or up, but 200 Hundred times smaller …. what the heck doess that mean ? Ecotalk ?
… mainstream scientific consensus”
To which the logical response should be “It’s a shared unproven belief, just like a religion”
“mainstream scientific consensus”
Wishy-washy appeal to authority. And in today’s world, also an appeal to celebrity. “Scientists say” is final.
“Mainstream” is argumentum ad populum.
And, of course, “consensus” is NOT SCIENCE!
To be fair, government really can only go by what seems to be the accepted, majority position of science on any subject. That climate science has gone to extremes because of political activism and for years has striven to prevent any challenge is the issue.
Sorry, P, they KNOW it’s a load of bovine excrement. It never was about the climate.
government really can only go by what seems to be the accepted, majority position
Gov should follow the risk assessment route: something that creates a lot of proven risk should have a lot of money thrown at it.
Phoenix is correct (though Gamecock sees no reason to be fair).
MPs, for example, have issues brought before them for which they are clueless. The parties present their side of the issue, and use outsiders to give expert opinion. Yeah, “experts” arguing with each other.
MPs go with which ever side seems convincing. So the fate of the nation is in the hands of well-meaning ignoramuses.
Gamecock’s solution has always been to limit their power. Don’t let them be deciding things for which they aren’t competent to decide.
MPs, for example, have issues brought before them for which they are clueless.
My knowledge of UK consitutional processes is sparse and outdated.
In the UK, information on important issues can be provided to MPs by a variety of established processes e.g. select committees, special committees, royal commissions (very rare in the last few decades), public inquiries and more.
Unless the terms of reference specify that “beyond reasonable doubt”must apply, then my GUESS is that the resource available to the believers in 2024 would allow the unproven belief in the existence of dangerous AGW to prevail within the report produced by the committee / commission / inquiry.
Going to take a while to read it all.
First part, speaking of government claiming to speak for the future, is excellent.
I hadn’t thought or even knew this:
Moreover, the appointments to the IPCC are made by governments. And the UK is vastly over-represented in both chapters. Of the 144 researchers that worked on Chapter 2, 37, or nearly 26%, are affiliated to the UK. 16 authors, or nearly 28% of Chapter 3 researchers were UK-affiliated.
So as far as the IPCC supporting the government position and the government following the IPCC Mandy Rice Davies applies again
That is the key. Why has the UK been institutionally captured like no other country on this issue. Who benefits? And why?
The government is riding ‘shot gun’, but its not the driver. We need to be far more focused on fighting this.
Only slightly off topic, one of my brothers attended the University of East Anglia, Norwich whilst the Climate Research Unit (CRU) was being established. I recall him commenting at the time (way back in the 70’s) that all studying and tutoring there were both third rate scientists (mostly those who couldn’t make it on to the Physics courses) and were incredibly politically motivated but couldn’t make into the politics courses either.
The IPCC is a global warming activist group that is NOT the leading scientific source on climate because its founding statement requires it to only look for the human source of global warming. It ignores papers that do not support this and as far as UK contributors to the IPCC, he has shown that they are all government or green-billionaire funded. Nobody who is pre-eminent in their field works for the IPCC after a dispute following either AR2 or 3 where they demanded their names be removed from the report as it was a travesty of science. And Ben Pile’s response shows the temperature hockey stick that has reappeared in AR6 where the Medieval Warm Period has been removed and the Roman Warm Period downgraded to lower then today which anecdotal evidence shows is not true.
Another early observation: the Government response is intellectually adolescent.
This could represent the intellect of the responders, OR, their opinion of the people to whom they are responding. Someone should be insulted.
It’s both
For one, I Sir, have been insulted !. As one of the Petitioners I thought HMG’s response was unthinking, ignorant & abysmal.
NetZero is the second biggest SCAM this century, the first being the Covid Pandemic scam, without doubt.
Second section sounds like Pile is unaware of the time value of money. He could give a better analysis.
The intransigence of the bourgeois. The major problem is that the BBC largely controls the narrative, reaches and informs the majority. By the time it has selectively issued the news and then presented the outcome, or insidiousness of climate, through drama, selective vox pop and permitted and encouraged ill informed commentary (often issued at the celebrity level, people whom we like and trust in portrayals) the situation is affirmed. While we rail about ‘no platforming’ and the reduction of contrary intellectuals in our centres of learning, higher ‘education’ the chief culprit in this regard, this is the BBC’s modus operandi. In a landmark decision the BBC hierarchy imposed a ban on any narrative whose content was at variance with their ‘truth’ of global warming and since that imposition it has been complicit in an endeavour to scare the population to death, to rackrent the energy market, to turn energy suppliers into Quangos (one of who when questioned informed the writer that they were ‘saving the world’, how Messianic and self adulating, choosing high prices to enforce their ambition). All the time the state (in its now expected response, as seen with Covid) over commits to incendiary policy and attains a situation where credibility is left lying bleeding. On this topic, it is self evident that after so much interference in public life based on data which is refuted and superseded the very fabric of the continuance of Parliamentary life itself mirrors the fall of the Pharaohs, found not to be gods. Such wholesale, bandwagon endorsements by impressionable representatives endeavouring to burnish their credentials is a tragedy of misappliance. They want the headline while we want moderation. The bourgeois, Stephen Sackur certainty, hauteur is allowed to be a second state and as this column continually finds, is impervious to its own infractions. Can debase lives generally through its self-admiration and infiltrate those who remember Alvar Liddel the veracity of ‘nice smiley voiced people’ and ‘Aunty’.
“Mainstream scientific consensus”. Those three words sum up the utter utter fraud these clueless idiots are supporting.
The Conservative Party embracing marxist tenants. Who would believe! God help us when the intelligent spinal-chord Minibrain (Milliband) gets in control.
There never has been and never will be any consensus in science. Science is not performed by committee. Science by its very nature is skeptical and never accepts anything on face value.
Science only exists where there is statistically significant empirical data obtained by repeatable and falsifiable methodology. Everything else is hearsay or religion.
As an important aside, there exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind to support their anti CO2 agenda. None! The fact that something as fundamental as this is swept under the carpet by those wishing to deceive is awe inspiring. If they will lie about the most fundamental cornerstone of their claim that then what about all the rest of the garbage claimed by these marxist led catastrophists?
All of the terminology used by the climate industrial complex and their useful idiots has been coined by people either with no understanding whatsoever about science or a deliberate and wilful intention to mislead.
The fact that “carbon” is used instead of Carbon Dioxide is another one. It is like saying banana when meaning bicycle. It is both deliberate and ignorant.
“Green” is the main abused idiot term. The people who use it have no clue what they are saying and this again is deliberate. As absurd as it may sound Carbon Dioxide IS the pinnacle of “Green” because as the gas of life it makes the world Green (it is also the source of the oxygen we breath). What the useful idiots and the marxists hiding in the shadows use the word for are antithetical to the word’s true meaning. The anoxic world they want is actually brown or lead grey because that is what a world without Carbon Dioxide will look like.
There are scientists who are part of this fraud and in the most part I would suggest they are there for the money. The hockey still fraud is uppermost in my mind. However it is clear that much of the misuse of terminology has a political rather than a scientific origin, with “science” being entertained where it can be cherry picked to agree with what they want. The IPCC represents the pinnacle of abuse of science. If anyone thinks the IPPC reports are written by scientists then think again. Scientists give input and non scientists write the text, excluding what they do not want and as has been proven, totally rewriting scientific input to make the opposite of reality appear to have a scientific origin. These are political operatives to a man/woman/thing.
In conclusion once again the marxist thread is evident because they were the inventors of inverted language. Use one word to mean something completely different YET keep people thinking of the original meaning.
Enough!
100% !.
‘There is no climate emergency’ . .
This is the best and easiest expression to remember when a quick and simple response is required.
Or ask “what do you mean by ‘climate emergency’?
I notice on Tv when , lets say a politician is being interviewed,and he comments that the science “says”,the pol. is never asked what it says.At that point the pol. should be asked to produce the scientific paper,and provide access to it.
I have never seen it .Does it exist?