Geoffrey Boot

[Net Zero Watch @NetZeroWatch]

"Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are 'implausible'... meaning most media scare stories over the last 15 years are officially junk." @CMorrisonEsq

#CostOfNetZero

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Spain once had the fastest growing solar sector in Europe. A 2007 subsidy law guaranteed huge fixed payments for solar electricity, and investors poured in.

Then the economics collapsed, and the government couldn't afford the scheme.

Between 2010 and 2012, Spain retroactively cut the subsidies it had already promised. Thousands of solar operators went bankrupt, with more than 62,000 investors hit. Banks wrote off $30 billion. And international investors sued Spain in more than 40 arbitration cases.

Across the country, half-built and abandoned solar farms sit idle. Ghost infrastructure from a failed policy.

Spain tried to engineer a solar boom with subsidies. Instead, it produced one of the largest renewable bankruptcies in the world.

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

For more than 50 years, environmentalists have issued apocalyptic forecasts — and time after time, they’ve failed.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb predicted mass starvation and pushed sterilization programs. Instead, the agricultural revolution boosted yields and turned India into the world’s top rice exporter.

In 1972, Limits to Growth warned the world would soon run out of food, oil, and metals. Today, resources are more abundant than ever, and billions have escaped extreme poverty.

The 1970s brought the “coming Ice Age.” It didn’t happen.

In the 1980s, acid rain was supposed to wipe out forests. It didn’t.

In the 1990s and 2000s, we were told the Arctic would be ice-free by now. It isn’t.

This year, the Great Barrier Reef was declared “on the brink” yet again — yet it just recorded its fourth-highest coral cover ever, following record years in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

In reality, climate-related disaster deaths have fallen 98% since the 1920s.

Yet the message never changes: stop growth, embrace austerity, and repent.

[Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki @MatthewWielicki]

I’ve spent my career working with real data. Messy data. Imperfect data. Data that comes with uncertainty, caveats, and hard limits on what we can honestly claim.

That’s why, the deeper I go, the more convinced I become that the global temperature record has quietly morphed into something far more troubling than sloppy science.

It is starting to look like the largest scientific fraud in human history.

Not fraud in the cartoonish sense, no secret cabals meeting in dark rooms, but fraud born of incentives, narrative protection, and a system that rewards one conclusion and punishes skepticism.

Everything in modern climate policy rests on a single number: global average temperature.

Trillions of dollars. Energy policy. Food prices. National security. Personal freedom.

And yet that number is not directly measured.
It is constructed.

Sparse station networks in the past… oceans measured with buckets, engine intakes, and shifting buoys… massive interpolation across places we never measured… followed by endless “adjustments” that almost always cool the past and warm the present.

Individually, each step is defended as reasonable.
Taken together, they form a system that is fragile, opaque, and deeply biased.

We now know that historic heatwaves in places like the Netherlands were literally erased from the record... and only reinstated after years of external pressure.

We see “record” temperatures today measured next to jet exhaust and asphalt, instantly canonized as climate milestones.

We watch past climate variability flattened while modern variability is amplified.

This isn’t how robust physical science behaves.
This is how a narrative behaves.
I’ve documented this pattern repeatedly:

• Why a single global temperature number props up the entire climate crisis story
• How “neighbor” corrections fail when neighbors never existed
• How the IPCC has systematically buried inconvenient past warmth, including the Medieval Warm Period
• How modern “record heat” is often a byproduct of bad station siting and urbanization, not atmospheric change

Every time someone says “the science is settled,” what they really mean is: don’t look too closely at the foundation.

Because if the global temperature record loses credibility, everything built on top of it starts to wobble... models, mandates, subsidies, and the sprawling bureaucracy that feeds on permanent crisis.

And here’s the question no one wants to ask:

If this record collapses…
If future audits expose just how much judgment, smoothing, and narrative steering went into that single line on a graph…

Who pays for it?
The taxpayers who funded it?
The public who was frightened into compliance?
The scientists who quietly went along?
Or does no one ever get held accountable?

That question is why I write.
That question is why I publish at https://t.co/oHJwRZwFmu.

I’ve written hundreds of deep-dive articles dissecting climate data, historical context, and the assumptions no one wants challenged. Most are free. Some go much deeper for subscribers who want to see the charts, the raw data, and the uncomfortable details.

If you care about evidence more than narrative…
If you believe science should be auditable, not insulated…
If you suspect something is deeply wrong with the most important metric of our time…

You’ll find the receipts at https://t.co/oHJwRZwFmu.

[Anika @anika_climate]

MET OFFICE EXPOSE: A British government agency, The Met Office came under scrutiny at the end of 2024 after private investigator Ray Saunders found they were fabricating 33% of their meteorological data. They were falsely reporting data from 103 non-existent weather stations. The weather stations simply did not exist, yet they reported abnormally high temperatures. Furthermore, this data was used to bolster the climate change narrative and promote the Net Zero agenda. The fabricated data, was also included in climate models which influenced financial commitments and has drawn more than it otherwise would have from climate funding, through structures like the United Nations. Once again this sparks concerns about the integrity of schemes like international ‘climate agreements’. Net Zero is a scam. The Met is lying to the British public.

https://t.co/Bs7tSRGFWm

[Lucy Biggers @LLBiggers]

The facts I learned that made me stop fearing climate change.

1. Deaths from natural disasters are down 95%.
2. 10x more people die from cold than from heat.
3. Global greening has increased.
4. Growers add up to 1,500 ppm of CO2 to their greenhouses.
5. Extreme weather has not gotten worse.

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

‼️ This is your Sunday WTF moment …

British carmakers are paying cash to subsidise Chinese manufacturers because they couldn’t sell enough EVs to hit government targets.

Under the UK’s Zero-Emission Vehicle rules, they have to sell increasing % of EVs. If they don’t hit those targets, they must buy credits from companies that did sell enough EVs

And guess what … that means British car makers giving cash to Chinese cheap EV manufacturers.

Exactly like the EU. This is the most ridiculous, mind blowing self destruction bollocks policy ever made up 💣

[Latimer Alder @latimeralder]

How do we get our Energy in Britain?

From oil and gas!

A little bit of it comes from 'renewables' to make a bit of our electricity.

But the vast majority is fossil fuels.

Please don't spread this chart. It upsets all the right people😉

[Bill Heller @noturbine]

@MatthewWielicki IER: Wind Turbines Against Nature

"German insect death toll from wind turbines of 1.2 trillion per year is 1/3 of annual migration in S. England."

"build-up of dead insects on wind turbine blades can reduce the electricity they generate by 50 percent."
https://t.co/m7BP2HitLi

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

Every single part of the “Net Zero will make the UK more energy secure” line is a lie!

We are utterly dependent on China, for components, manufacturing, minerals. Every supply chain leads back to them.

We can’t even make our own steel. A £4bn taxpayer-funded green power plant, built with Chinese steel!

China is buying Britain one watt of electricity at a time.

Ed Miliband and his globalist plotters either know exactly what they are doing, which is a treasonous betrayal … or they don’t, which is terrifying.

[Robin Monotti @robinmonotti]

Do you agree with Dr Bellamy?
Straight up yes or no?

[Agent P @AgentP22]

Net Zero lunatic Ed Miliband needs sacked before he ruins the country any further.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Scotland's Rewilding Failure

2003: Environmental groups celebrate a major victory in the Scottish Highlands. Large tracts of land are designated for "rewilding." The goal is to restore the landscape to "natural" conditions.

Step one: Remove the sheep and cattle that have been grazing there for centuries.

The theory is simple. Livestock are "unnatural." Remove them and nature will recover.

What actually happens next is documented extensively, though rarely discussed outside specialist ecology circles.

Year 1-2: Without grazing, the grass grows tall and rank. Coarse species dominate. The flower diversity that existed under grazing pressure begins declining.

Year 3-5: Bracken invasion. Bracken is toxic to most herbivores, so it faced no natural check once livestock were removed. It spreads aggressively, shading out other plants.
Biodiversity drops.

Year 5-10: Scrub encroachment. Without grazing to control it, woody shrubs spread rapidly. This sounds good - "more trees!" - except it's the wrong kind of succession.

Ground-nesting birds that need open grassland lose their habitat. Species like curlew, lapwing, golden plover - all declining.

The tick population explodes. Without livestock to host on, they wait in vegetation for deer or birds. Lyme disease cases in surrounding areas increase.

Fire risk increases dramatically. Ungrazed vegetation creates massive fuel loads. Summer fires become a serious problem where they were previously rare.

Meanwhile, the soil isn't improving. Plant matter isn't being trampled in. No dung to feed soil microbes. The carbon sequestration that grazing provides isn't happening.

Year 10+: The land is assessed. Biodiversity has decreased. The landscape is dominated by a few aggressive species instead of the diverse grassland that existed under grazing.

The "rewilding" failed to restore what was there before livestock. It created something else - and something worse for most species.

Ecologists quietly start reintroducing grazing.
Sometimes with native breeds of cattle. Sometimes with Highland cattle specifically selected to mimic wild herbivore behavior.

The land begins recovering. The diverse grassland returns. Birds come back. Flowers reappear.

The lesson is clear: The British uplands evolved with large herbivores. Before cattle, there were aurochs. Before aurochs, there were other large grazers for millions of years.

Removing grazing doesn't restore nature. It disrupts the process that built the ecosystem in the first place.

But this story doesn't fit the narrative. So it's not publicized.

Environmental groups continue campaigning to remove livestock from hills while the ecological evidence shows this makes things worse.

"Rewilding" sounds natural. Until you realize the land evolved being grazed and removing that process is the actual disruption.

[John Lee Pettimore @JohnLeePettim13]

The world has spent approximately $6–7 trillion cumulatively on wind turbines and solar panels. With that amount, we could have built up to 1,400 standard nuclear power plants (each with ~1–1.2 GW capacity, typical for modern large reactors). With proper maintenance, safety upgrades, and regulatory approvals, many nuclear plants last 60 years- 80 years or more. A typical wind or solar farm lasts about 20 years, meaning we would need to spend up to $21 trillion to produce the same energy as nuclear. With $21 trillion, the world could theoretically fund up to 4,000 nuclear power plants.
Now lets talk about wind turbines.
Without the Production Tax Credit (PTC), many wind farms were not economically viable from electricity sales alone, due to high upfront costs, intermittency (requiring backup power), and competition from cheaper sources like natural gas. The tax credits effectively offset a significant portion of costs—in some cases covering much or all of the investment for tax-liable entities—turning otherwise marginal or unprofitable projects into attractive ones. Are you seeing the scam? It's time to start building more nuclear and less of these green dream turbines and solar panels.

[Alan Smith @AlanJLSmith]

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.”

Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free but what about the other six men?

The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage.

They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!“　

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”　

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”　

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that’s how it works.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Dane @UltraDane]

A single green 2 MW wind turbine contains:

✔️ 260 TONS of steel (made from 300T iron ore + 170T coal)

✔️ 700 GALLONS of oil & hydraulic fluid (replaced yearly)

✔️ All mined, shipped, and built using FOSSIL FUELS

But wait—there's more:

☢️ Thousands of turbines = millions of tons of mined materials

☢️ Non-recyclable blades dumped in landfills

☢️ Intermittent power means backup gas/coal plants run ANYWAY

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

💣 Well what a ridiculous speech. Rachel Reeves has managed to blame everyone else but herself….Also, let’s cover misinformation. Because what she said doesn’t reflect the reality.

They have
▪️increased Quangos not cut them
▪️increased regulations, not cut them
▪️tied us to high EU carbon trading prices
▪️bringing in extra carbon import taxes
▪️increased public sector staff
▪️Increased public sector wages
▪️Low productivity linked to energy costs
▪️Increased net zero subsidies
▪️Building slowest on record
▪️ increased spending on consultants
▪️implemented packaging tax
▪️allowed councils to put up tax.

All of the above will continue to increase the cost of living and not bring it down.

So … there you go.

[Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education @craigkellyAFEE]

The scam is unraveling everywhere.

[Concerned Citizen @BGatesIsaPyscho]

People have been seriously brainwashed into believing that 0.04% Co2 in the Atmosphere is caused by Man Made emissions.

Of the 0.04% - Human contribution is approximately just 3%

Means Co2 in the atmosphere created by Man is just 0.000012%

Plants also thrive in Co2 rich environment.

It’s a SCAM to tax you more & control your lives.