Peter Adlington

In a permanent state of ontological shock.

Restore Britain

[David Turver @7Kiwi]

UK electricity bills are heading sharply higher — despite all the “clean energy superpower” promises. My new article reveals how subsidies & grid costs will explode to £40bn+ by 2030/31. Tory and Reform policies will not be enough to reverse the trend. A thread 🧵(1/11)

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

The IPCC and others got it wrong on 8.5, and they knew it, many years ago. They allowed 8.5 to mislead the entire enterprise of science and politics, and to seriously misinform the public.

Now Sky News is trying to limit the embarrassment.

Sky news have never done an investigative piece on bullshit merchants' exploitation of 8.5, yet 8.5 is the manifestly unfounded basis of much of the UK Met Office's climate propaganda, and also the Bank of England's. Thus much of UK policy is based on 8.5 scenarios.

That is to say that the IPCC is more wrong and more misleading on climate change than Donald Trump.

Why is Sky News taking sides and defending institutional science's wilful politicisation of fake science?

Why isn't it reporting on the mistakes, showing how these bogus alarmist stories were created and then spread throughout intergovernmental agencies and governments, and were covered by a dangerously uncritical news media, which led to bad politics and bad policy?

Oh, I think I just answered my own question.

Sorry, @SkyNews -- Trump called this one correctly, and your wriggling in defence of deeply conflicted research organisations isn't going to help matters. You should have just allowed them to take the L. But now you're drawing attention to it, you're making it much worse.

[David Turver @7Kiwi]

The UK government loves celebrating how it has halved emissions since 1990. But is it real… or just clever accounting? My new thread exposing how official claims of emissions reduction are cooking the books. (1/8)

[David Turver @7Kiwi]

UK energy policy is economic self-harm. Labour banning new North Sea drilling licences + fracking — right as the Strait of Hormuz crisis hits. Yet oil & gas extraction is one of our MOST productive industries. A thread (1/10)

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

The Green Blob has done more to destroy British industry and the economy than the Luftwaffe, the radical left, the excesses & collapse of empire, the Cold War and our enemies combined could even dream of. And it did it from within Number 10, furthered by idiot green wonks.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

https://t.co/lJR8L3eIrP

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

Nationalising British steel is one of the most empty items on his list. It's already dead, killed by decades of Labour and Tory policy.

But more than that, it's an utterly symbolic gesture, to save one of the most energy-intensive sectors from the policy agenda that was forged (no pun intended) out of the Westminster consensus.

*All* industries and businesses have rising energy costs. If you're only seeking to save the ones that are closest to the precipice because of policy, then you have missed the point entirely.

Cake shops have high energy costs (and high everything else costs) too. Data centres require industrial amounts of power.

If we had rational energy policy, then neither cake shops, datacentres or steel works would be up shit creek.

But Starmer cannot address the Miliband elephant in the room. And most of Parliament dare not meaningfully dismantle the consensus that the green blob installed.

[David Turver @7Kiwi]

Yesterday, @EnergyUKcomms caught a bad case of Net Zero Derangement Syndrome by claiming that removing carbon taxes will increase bills. A thread (1/n)

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

"Ideological opposition" means nothing if you cannot unpack the alleged "ideology" and explain how it motivates the argument.

Bob is very often completely out of his depth, yet picks fights and sticks his neck out to sour public debate with invective, in order to prevent it reaching the fake, ideologically-motivated academic institutions and organisations his grantor and other green billionaires lavishly fund.

It is the green agenda which is ideological. Deeply ideological. Institutional science is its fig leaf. There can be and are ideological objections to the ideological green agenda. But there are many technical arguments against it too. And it turns out that institutional science is far more fickle and prone to politics and ideology than we like to think.

It's not climate sceptics or policy sceptics that run to censors and hide behind institutional science when they are challenged. It's not critics of the green agenda that seek to have opposition closed down.

Greens of nearly all kinds have never been able to engage in debate to achieve their objectives because they have not emerged from within the democratic tradition. They don't seek to persuade, because environmentalism requires merely obedience. Theirs is a model for social organisation that cannot have people disagreeing with it, because they do not credit their ideology's critics with intellectual capacity: to disagree is to be wrong -- that's as deep as it goes.

Look at what passes for their arguments -- they are entirely presupposed, and framed around concepts such as 'denial'. And look at the calibre of their intellectuals. There is little difference in capacity or attitude, and no improvement, between the street-level activists and the top of the tree. From XR to the presidents of scientific institutions, there is zero ability to defend the ideas from criticism in good faith. Only a bizarre and sinister ideology can explain the entire thing.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

Coutinho is AGAIN reproducing a green blob outfit's claims, over an issue that is, from the consumer's POV, completely irrelevant.

Just 18 months ago, Miliband was guest of honour at their events.

The Conservatives Net Zero U-turn is increasingly fake. They may not be Miliband, but they're still attached to the blob.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

Sheer cakeism from Tony Blair in a SIXTH(!!!) report in little more than a year that fires shots across Ed Miliband's agenda.

But >>>

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

TELEGRAPH:- "The Conservatives and Britain Remade, a Right-leaning think tank, have claimed that the Energy Secretary is hiding documents that show his decision to scrap major market reforms will cost consumers while benefiting green energy generators."

Nope. Britain Remade is a Green Blob think tank.

It is just a bunch of former Tory advisor gimps that got us into this mess. Literally -- they did it.

Now the blob are playing both sides, and these clowns are putting on a show of being in opposition.

If you need a think tank and a political party to tell you that your bills are going up and Ed Miliband lied, then you might just as well vote Labour at the next election, because you're getting the green blob anyway.

https://t.co/ZA9wB8ayHQ

[David Turver @7Kiwi]

The Government said they reduced the indexation rate for renewables because they'd been over-compensated. That's not even half the story.
New analysis shows wind farms have already received more in subsidy than the build cost, enriching overseas investors. A thread (1/n)

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

NB:- Radical environmentalism is alive and well in the Conservative Party. And if its leadership was altered, that tendency would return and dominate.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

Octomarketing airhead defends policy by claiming that expensive energy and more expensive appliance is justified by consumer survey, therefore ban choice.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

Parasitic, expensive, antisocial, destabilising, regressive, and prone to malfunctioning... Energy non-infrastructure is being remade in the government's image.

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

COP30 claims the world was racing toward 4C of warming, and that the Paris Agreement somehow pulled us off that path.

But that 4C path never existed. It came from what's known as RCP 8.5 - an extreme scenario scientists abandoned years ago because it required impossibly high coal use, unrealistic population growth and no technological improvements.

COP30 is reviving RCP 8.5 so as to pretend the 2015 Paris Agreement saved the world, but CO2 emissions never slowed after Paris. All that changed was the politics. More taxes, more control, weaker energy.

COP30 desperately needed a win, so it rewrote the past.

[David Turver @7Kiwi]

🚨UK Net Zero & energy subsidies have exploded to £585 BILLION 🚨

Our taxes funding unreliable renewables, backups, carbon capture & subsidies to use the expensive energy. A new update to the Subsidy Control Database exposes the scale of the madness. (1/11)

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

If you need "help", then you cannot "thrive".

Thriving is a condition manifestly distinct to a condition in which "help" is needed.

Politicians who think they "help" or otherwise create the circumstances for doing things are invariably agents of doom.

--"We're going to help your small business by abolishing petrol and diesel, so that it's harder for your suppliers to produce and get stuff to you, harder for your customers to reach you, and more expensive for you to do business. We're going to increase energy prices so that your supplies are more expensive, your costs are higher, and your customers have less disposable income. Oh, yes, we know that this will create problems, so we'll subsidise some of your expenses, and pass the costs on to taxpayers -- just in case you had any customers left."--

The Green Party's political doctrine does not exist in any meaningful way -- it is and always has been 'vibes' based, and it struggled to make an offering that was distinct to the legacy parties' offerings, and so merely epitomised them. To the extent that they are anti-cap, as Polanski's anti-multinational tweet implies, Greens' desire is for pre-capitalism, not post-capitalism -- communists at least wanted power stations and factories.

Curiously (or not) this suited many stewards of hyper-accumulations of capital and green billionaires, who have funded the wider project of "transition". That is because people who sit on very large piles of cash or assets are often either drawn to the idea of zero-sum economics and a steady-state political order -- a condition in which small business is unlikely to even be born, much less thrive -- or desire to rehabilitate their image.

Green ideology has suited large, multinational corporations. It has guaranteed profits, destroyed competition, created complex regulatory environments, diminished opportunities for entry. Look at the changing ownership of land, for instance. Green energy is land-intensive. And green agriculture is too, because it is less productive. Thus dependence on primary industries increases as energy density is diminished by legislation. That suits large landowning interests. Environmentalism is regressive.

A number of people, from across the political spectrum have observed this emergent feudalism. But that generally doesn't result in a robust criticism of environmentalism as such, more an observation of its excesses.

"Help to thrive" is a contradiction. It's like offering you a hand up while standing on your neck. It's entirely superficial, and has no origin in deeper political thought beyond "be nasty to billionaires". And its broader milieu are public-sector middle class, only overlapping with the boutique/lifestyle capitalist middle class. This constituency is quite hostile to private enterprise -- it is coarse, gauche, vulgar, on their view. You couldn't put it on a T-shirt. Much less could you write a book in defence of it. And anyway, so what if the government end up owning shops and farms and whatever factories and businesses remain?

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

The only interesting words in this piece are "major powers including the US, China and India are not part of the talks." And the reasons for that are obvious. Half the world isn't going to even give this project a second's thought, because a fifth of it has pulled itself out of poverty, another fifth is on its way. The remainder is already there, and doesn't want to immiserate itself like Europe, which is leading this self-destruction, has -- chaos, which will see European countries do 180 degrees on this soon, but not soon enough.

As ever for a BBC article, it is what is omitted that should interest us.

Why is the United Nations so routinely presented as a neutral entity by BBC hacks? It is an intergovernmental organisation. It is no less drenched in ideology and interests than any government in the world. And by being beyond the reach of the world's population, it is wholly unaccountable, and is therefore wholly corrupt in every way conceivable -- each scandal of which would have brought a national government down. But the UN's image is constantly rehabilitated by journalists who pretend none of it has happened, and that the green agenda isn't as ideological as any early 20th century political movement.

The UN -- and the BBC -- has no more idea how fossil fuels can be "ditched" without causing mass death than UK and European governments know how it can be achieved without destroying their economies, likely eventually to the same effect. European governments are now symbols of the failure of the green agenda, while the world is repolarising. Nobody is looking to European governments as a model for their own future, except by virtue of $multibillion slush funds that buy support for UK/EU agendas in UN processes.

The UN needs to be dismantled to its core functions, renamed, replaced and it remaining part forever constrained from expanding so far past any legitimate function that it ever had -- if it ever had it. The BBC has proven itself to be nothing more than an instrument of such political projects. And the UK government, to the extent that it is seeking to use the UN to achieve such ideological goals as destroying abundant, affordable energy resources and denying them to all of humanity, reveals that it is neither a force for good in the world, not motivated to represent our interests in the slightest.