Friday, 27 November 2020

Part 4 - Indictments

 (Neil's Note: This the fourth and final extract from my submission in July to the UK government's rigged "consultation" on de-carbonizing transport).

6.    Indictments

When you piece together the story of what the green wreckers and their cronies have done to us, as I have done in this pamphlet, I expect you will go through several emotions. You will be amazed at the arrogance with which they have behaved. You will be horrified by how often, how badly, and for how long, they have lied to you and misled you. You will be angry at how those, that are supposed to represent you and serve you, have persistently acted against your interests. You will understand that they are not your friends, but your enemies. And you will want to join with other like-minded people to fight back against them.

Here are some of the things they have done to us over “climate change” and other environmental issues. I have divided the list into two parts: one for the UK government, and one for the activists, media, pseudo “scientists” and other hangers-on. It’s not nice reading.

Indictments against the UK government

1.    They failed to explain clearly to the people just what the adverse consequences to them would be, if the UK signed up to the Rio agreements in 1992.

2.    They signed up to the Rio agreements without holding a referendum, which should have been mandatory before any commitment of that magnitude could be made.

3.    They accepted, even if they did not actually demand, that the 1995/6 IPCC report should be presented in a more alarmist way than was warranted by the science.

4.    They have persistently sought to impose collective targets and limits on what people may do. Such targets and limits are unjust and tyrannical, and should never be imposed in any civilized country, least of all in a democracy.

5.    They have committed to third parties, the UN and the EU, that they will enforce these unjust, tyrannical limits.

6.    Further, they have on several occasions moved the goalposts by arbitrarily tightening these limits.

7.    They have perverted the precautionary principle, from its true form “Look before you leap,” into a general presumption that if there is doubt over a risk, government should act. In the process, they have negated the presumption of innocence, inverted the burden of proof, and required the accused to prove a negative.

8.    They accepted and acted on the Stern Review in 2006, despite its use of the most pessimistic of the available assessment models, and despite economists’ criticisms that its policy recommendations depended on controversial and extreme assumptions.

9.    They passed the 2008 climate change act without holding a referendum, which should have been mandatory before any commitment of that magnitude could be made.

10. They have made, on many occasions, very costly commitments on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent, without any rigorous justification.

11. They have promoted electricity from green energy sources, which (as they ought to have known) are not adequate to provide reliable power for a Western industrial civilization, because they must be backed up by conventional power sources.

12. They abandoned the social cost approach to cost-benefit analysis on issues involving carbon dioxide emissions. In consequence, since 2009 they have not even attempted cost versus benefit assessments on issues involving CO2.

13. All three of their 2010 inquiries into the Climategate scandal whitewashed the matter.

14. They signed up to the 2015 Paris agreement without holding a referendum, which should have been mandatory before any commitment of that magnitude could be made.

15. They allowed in 2019 an extremist and arguably terrorist green group to dictate government policy.

16. The parliament in 2019 declared a “climate emergency” without any evidence, and without even a vote.

17. They committed in 2019 to a “zero carbon” target by 2050; requiring extensive and draconian measures which clearly are against the interests of the people. The proposals have very high costs, both economic and in freedom, and offer no or almost no proven benefits.

18. Neither their plans for implementing “zero carbon,” nor the consequences to the people affected by them, have been thought through.

19. They have failed to implement a prototype scheme to prove that a zero-carbon economy would actually be sustainable.

20. They have allowed climate policies to be driven by a “Committee for Climate Change,” which does not represent the interests of the people, and is neither independent nor impartial.

21. They have repeatedly acted in bad faith towards the people they are supposed to be serving. Their attitude is arrogant, insincere and insensitive, and they lack concern for the bad consequences of their policies on the people.

22. They seek further to restrict the activities of drivers who are already paying far more in carbon taxes than the best estimated social cost of CO2 emissions from their cars.

Indictments against activists, media and academe

23. They have persistently misrepresented what the “climate change” allegations actually are.

24. They have been unwilling to enter into fair and open debate with skeptics of the “climate change” allegations.

25. They label skeptics with nasty names like “denier” or “flat earther.”

26. They have attempted, and are attempting, to suppress skeptical views.

27. They have shown ungratefulness and even hatred towards human industrial civilization, which has given so much to all of us – including them.

28. They show hatred for the free market economy; the only environment in which human beings, at our present stage of development, can flourish to the full potential of each.

29. The mainstream media, with only a few exceptions, are biased towards the alarmist side.

30. The BBC have allowed their policy on climate change reporting to be dictated by activists.

31. The BBC have violated their own charter by denying fair time to the skeptical side.

32. “Scientists” have sought to interfere with the review and publication process for scientific papers.

33. They have fudged, or dropped, data in order to produce an alarming effect.

34. They have refused to share their data for the purpose of replicating their work, an essential part of science.

35. They have conspired to delete data in order to avoid Freedom of Information requests.

36. They have conspired to get sacked at least one journal editor who published skeptical papers.

37. They have used taxpayers’ money, which had been paid to them to do science, for purposes which were not science.

38. Taxpayer-funded universities have created pie-in-the-sky plans for “zero carbon” that, if put into effect, would cause huge damage to the people who paid for them.


No comments: