Climate Scientists Urge British PM to Pass Zero Emissions Laws Before She Leaves Office

Left: Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science, Oxford University. Right: Theresa May, outgoing British Prime Minister. By UK Government – https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-statement-in-downing-street-24-may-2019, OGL 3, Link

As British Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to step down, Climate scientists are urging her to pass Zero Emissions laws before she leaves office.

Climate change: Zero emissions law should be PM’s legacy, scientists say

31 May 2019

Leading climate scientists have called for Theresa May to make her “legacy” a target to cut greenhouse gases to zero by 2050.

A group of experts have written to the prime minister calling for her to enshrine a target for “net zero” emissions in national law.
Experts claim the target is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
The government said the UK already leads the world in tackling global warming.

In their letter, the scientists said the evidence was “unequivocal” that avoiding dangerous climate change means eliminating or offsetting all carbon emissions – not just reducing them. 

A government spokesman said: “We already lead the world in tackling climate change, being the first country to introduce long-term legally-binding carbon reduction targets and cutting emissions further than all other G20 countries.”

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48467462

The following is the full text of the letter (source)

This isn’t the first time climate scientists have urged political leaders leaving office to pass unpopular climate laws.

James Hansen expressed his fury that President Obama refused an “opportunity” to tie President Trump’s hands on climate policy – in the final days of his Presidency, President Obama placed respecting the wishes of the American people ahead of cementing his climate legacy.

There is particular scorn for Barack Obama. Hansen says in a scathing upcoming book that the former president “failed miserably” on climate change and oversaw policies that were “late, ineffectual and partisan”.
Hansen even accuses Obama of passing up the opportunity to thwart Donald Trump’s destruction of US climate action, by declining to settle a lawsuit the scientist, his granddaughter and 20 other young people are waging against the government, accusing it of unconstitutionally causing peril to their living environment.

“Near the end of his administration the US said it would reduce emissions 80% by 2050,” Hansen said.

“Our lawsuit demands a reduction of 6% a year so I thought, ‘That’s close enough, let’s settle the lawsuit.’ We got through to Obama’s office but he decided against it. It was a tremendous opportunity. This was after Trump’s election, so if we’d settled it quickly the US legally wouldn’t be able to do the absurd things Trump is doing now by opening up all sorts of fossil fuel sources.”

Read More: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning

Climate scientists are well aware that politicians who openly embrace their hideously damaging green ideas lose elections. This is why they target political leaders who are on the way out, leaders who no longer have to face the people who elected them.

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “Climate Scientists Urge British PM to Pass Zero Emissions Laws Before She Leaves Office

  1. This could be restated as “Climate fraudsters urge British PM to vindictively screw UK citizens before she leaves office.”

    • Yes, but at least we know that the signatories subscribe to the destruction of western economies and probably to the UN aim of an unelected global government .

      It seems from their use of the word “unequivocal” that facts and contrary scienctific evidence are not very relevant to them – failed climate models are seemingly all they need to spout this nonsense.

      • “However, science is unequivocal that avoiding dangerous climate change means not just reducing carbon emissions but bringing them to net zero. ”

        Lies and more lies. Anything to ensure the funding gravy train keeps rolling.

        • “unequivocal”-clear, unambiguous, leaving no doubt
          WUWT is comprised of examples of equivocations on the meaning of climate data and physics. Not only do the articles and commenters question the conclusion that rising CO2 is now or will soon cause dangerous ‘climate change” many, including me, question any link between human emissions and atmospheric CO2 content and thus any potential to effect climate by eliminating our emissions.
          Once again we see the problem created when “science” is evoked as an institution rather than a mode of inquiry as Lindzen warned.

          • If Mdm May does force through Climate Castration on her great country she’ll be Laming the Nation

          • The term “climate change” , the way in which it is used, is an equivocation. It has no real meaning, because the default condition of this planet’s atmosphere is change. It can be applied willy-nilly to any “climatic event”, mild or extreme, which takes place within their arbitrary definition of climate.

      • Miles Allen seems to be a key “communicator” recently. That’s several times he has popped in the last months.

        Goading an unelected Prime Minister to do something against the people’s wishes just before being forced from office to be replaced by another unelected Prime Minister “because it doesn’t matter any more” , reveals his totally cynical contempt for those he perceives as his lessers.

        I’m really getting to dislike this guy.

        • Someone should check all of their bank statements for unusually large unexplained deposits.
          If caught they’d likely explain them as “advisory remunerations” from Green renewable energy interests.

          • isle of man/cayman islands accounts cant BE checked and you can bet thats where the moneys going

    • Well, she’s screwed everything else up, they obviously think she may as well screw us again before she goes. One of the reasons for leaving the EU is because they are planning to spend at least a quarter of the EU budget (taxpayers money) on ‘climate change’.

      “Leading climate scientists”, if you read the names, it’s the usual suspects. The only thing they’re capable of is leading us to economic ruin.

      • The rest of the country, yes, but in the mean time loads of OPM for “research” and an early retirement before anyone realises the claims are bogus.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48467462

        Pretty cool the way the lead photo on this articel shows the REAL cause of “global heating” [ new PC term for global warming: sounds more serious, right? ].

        Thermometer, clouds, blinding sun light.

        Yes, the energy comes from the sun and is controlled by WATER, in all its states.
        Climate models can not model clouds so they just make up “parameters” for clouds instead.

        • The “enforcer” of the psychology of “runaway global warming” has been relative humidity. Warm ocean cycles have made the entire globe more humid, resulting in normally cold, dry polar regions becoming the predominant areas exhibiting warming anomalies. The late planting season in the US and Europe is completely opposite of what CO2 warming predicts.

  2. I would have thought Theresa May’s legacy is bad enough already, without the need for her to endorse her bad judgement credentials still further via a pointless environmental policy mandate.
    I would ask each and every one of these so called scientists if they n=have stopped using fossil fuel powered aircraft or vehicles in line with their demand everyone else should do that.
    Lead by example chaps, show us all how to do it.

    • Yes, Hansen has been at the nexus of climate alarmism since its inception. It was his flawed application of linear feedback analysis that became the holy grail providing the IPCC/UNFCCC ‘theoretical’ cover to justify their formation. I don’t think the flaws were malicious and he was just in over his head about something he knew little about, although I doubt he appreciated being referred to as an alarmist lunatic by the Reagan administration as they cut back on GISS funding. Hansen connected with Gore shortly before that and it’s hard to say who had a worse influence on who, but together, they cemented the relationship between the political left and the pseudo-science of climate alarmism enabling lying and cheating to become their last remaining tool.

    • “then you know you’re wrong.”
      No, you simply have total contempt for lesser mortals because you are an Oxford professor. The only form of life superior to an Oxford professor is a Cambridge professor ( but please don’t tell him ).

      That means you can incite a failed PM to abuse her position

      Despite being a useless PM, I suspect May has more scruples than Prof Allen.

      • Contempt or not, a lie is required because they know the truth isn’t what will work for them. AKA. a lie is a lie, for whatever reason, it’s still a lie. And they know it is a lie because they continue to do it after people point out their folly.

    • Unfortunately not.

      The problem with a lot of Lefts is they know they are ‘correct’ and by extension you are clearly wrong.

      Maybe not wrong in your base principles, but absolutely wrong in your conclusions. There is no, ‘you think differently, we should discuss this further for our mutual benefit’, there is simply ‘I am correct, ergo you are wrong’.

      Once you have accepted the other party’s conclusions are wrong it is a simply step to then insist that action against this party is morally justified. Cheating and lying? No big deal, provided of course the morally correct end target is achieved.

      Hence we get groups who do not even want to debate the base science (ie proof or not that Greenhouse Gas theory even actually works) because that is no longer the issue. The issue is the world will be ‘better’ if you do what they say. It no longer really matters IF Global Warming(tm) is real, it is instead important that the change is made for the Greater Good.

      Not about the eggs. All about the omelette.

      • It is not that you are simply wrong, it is that you are evil in thinking what you do; you could never reach your conclusion, given the evidence, if you weren’t evil. We will never stoop to debating with evil people. Believe as us or be destroyed.

        • And why do you have to be the bad guy? Because they MUST be the goody good guys of goodness. Their egos won’t allow the idea that they may not be as good as they think to get a foot in the door.

  3. Compared to China and India, Britain doesn’t emit very much CO2. If CO2 is such a problem (and I dispute that it is a problem*) why aren’t these “scientists” writing to the Premier of China and Prime Minister of India?

    * CO2 is a beneficial trace gas on which all life depends. It is not a “pollutant” that needs to be regulated.

    • CO2 is indeed a precious, life-giving, beneficial trace gas upon which all life depends. My Suburban has contributed many thousand tons to the atmosphere and I hope to contribute many thousand tons more. It is my sincere wish to see atmospheric concentrations exceed 800 ppm in my lifetime. I suspect that we will not see that when colder oceans begin absorbing at a higher rate.

    • Oh James Beaver… please…

      Don’t you know that China is a ‘developing country’? Really.. just ask the UN.

    • Good point. China matched US and EU emissions in 2005. China is now triple US emissions. Any action by the US or the EU is pointless.

  4. Anybody notice that “climate control freaks” won’t wait for democratic processes? Sue and Settle is the Deep State’s go-to method for thwarting the will of the people; socialism/authoritarianism at its subversive best.

    • Dave, these folks see due process as a hindrance to their “just” cause. They’re trying to save Gaia from humanity (excluding themselves).

      • Pop, don’t you see? They are just so much smarter than you and me. (“Me” sounds better than “I” here. I’m not even sure what grammar call for anymore. After all these decades, I’ll just go with what I want; screw the scolds.)

        • No sweat, Dave, you got it right. I despair when I here people say: ‘between you and I’, when it should be ‘between you and me’.
          It’s easy to test: remove the ‘you and’ from the sentence and see if it scans (you wouldn’t say ‘you are smarter than I’, would you?

  5. She can try to pass whatever she wants, it will not stand after the new kid comes in. Much she has done won’t stand under a new admin.

  6. Doesn’t this remind you of the kid you witnessed who, when they lost a game or was out played by others to a point where their incompetence became blatant, would steal the ball, toss the game board up in the air and stomp off, accuse others of cheating and/or throw a fit of name calling, projection and ridicule?

    These people must never be allowed be have positions of power. They are far too dangerous and destructive.

    • Those types are ALL we have in government as elected officials, and pedantic bureaucrats who thrive on telling others how to live. Their knowledge is hollow and misguided.

  7. My fear is she is stupid enough to actually attempt to do it. The scientivists realize that once Brexit happens their noses will get pushed out of the EU trough.

    • And it is the EU who fund green activists to formulate climate “policy”, whilst in the UK the Climate Change Committee is chaired by an individual whose family company generates its income from “advising” the renewable energy industry.

  8. Hansen even accuses Obama of passing up the opportunity to thwart Donald Trump’s destruction of US climate action, by declining to settle a lawsuit the scientist, his granddaughter and 20 other young people are waging against the government, accusing it of unconstitutionally causing peril to their living environment.

    That’s called sue and settle. It’s evil and, I’m guessing, unconstitutional. link

  9. They are showing an ignorance about how the system works. May has no powers to do anything like that

    • She had the power to write the worst deal in the history of bad deals. Thank goodness she is going and her deal was given a big raspberry.

      • Yes, we now learn that even on the EU side (Selmayr in particular, Juncker’s personal high executioner) there were concerns that she was accepting every condition put to her to the extent that the treaty would be unacceptable to cabinet and/or parliament. I think May has done enough harm without miring us in even deeper greencrap.

        As the saying goes, “Your work on earth is done, return now to your own planet”.

    • Yes. For someone, a professor no less, in Oxford not to know that is ridiculous. Or perhaps he was just grandstanding, which is a more likely explanation.

  10. I am sorry to say that these people are not scientists. They have no clue how to objectively analyze data and reach a sound technically based conclusion. So what do we call them other than Frauds? A am not sure.

    • Unfortunately they do seem to meet the required standards of what passes for “scientist” in today’s world. I see it every day in my own academic environment. Science for many presently is not about the true scientific process, skepticism, and the honest reporting of objective observation, it is about grants, publications, prestige, a high profile in the media, and alignment with ill-conceived political crusades. It has become a religious cult rather than a process of fact-finding. We might as well ask the Spanish Inquisition what’s policies to peruse. Then, at least, there would be no confusion about what we were getting.

      • When “scientist” became a career unto itself around a century ago, the inherent conflict of interest between pursue-proper-science and pursue-job-security gradually and inexorably infected the institutions of scholarship.

        Science was in a better way when it was a hobby of the independently wealthy and a side project of military officers.

  11. Thats odd, the text says leading climate scientists, but the letter has been signed by Myles Allen and Julia Slingo.

  12. ” President Obama placed respecting the wishes of the American people ahead of cementing his climate legacy.”
    Incorrect statement. Obama did not respect the wishes of the American people he just knew he couldn’t do it on his own. Kyoto = “the wishes of the American people” and didn’t get a single vote in Congress. Not one. And that’s why he joined the Paris Discord unilaterally, without a vote. There wasn’t anything more Obama could have done or he would have.

  13. Do Miles and Julia REALLY think that if May does what the’ve asked, China and India will say:

    “OMG! – See what Terry has just done! She is extreme woke. That’s so, like, fire; we better ape, or we won’t, like, get invited to the GR8 parties!”

  14. Mr. Worrall, if I’m correct, you as an Australian may have more influence over British parliament than the unfortunate Mrs. May.

  15. I repeat an earlier comment “These people must never be allowed be have positions of power. They are far too dangerous and destructive.” So true!!
    Climate science would have been much advanced by now if those wrong people did not take the lead.

  16. ““We already lead the world in tackling climate change, being the first country to introduce long-term legally-binding carbon reduction targets and cutting emissions further than all other G20 countries.””

    Translation:
    We already lead in meaningless Virtue Signalling as we continue on a path towards economic suicide for our country.

  17. This proposal does not go far enough. I demand that we respond to the climate emergency by reducing our population numbers by 97%. It will be called the lemming law.

    As the UK Govt is so keen on being lemmings they will be first in line to hurl themselves off the white cliffs of Dover, then every politician in the UK can follow suit, holding hands with their EU counterparts.

    Problem solved in a humane fashion that won’t affect real people as the lemming law will then be immediately repealed

    • Rob June 2, 2019 at 12:21 pm
      Somebody should round up these so called scientists and take them to firing squad and get rid of them
      ——————
      Such hatred. And people here have the temerity to decry the Monty Pythonesque humorous film blowing up people.

      • Concern troll is concerned.

        No more hate that shooting varmints around the home. It’s called pest control.

        That said, advocating violence, whatever the motive, is bad form Rob.

  18. Similar to asking the government to pass laws that will result in a goal of say a “zero crime rate” by some future date. Not really requested by someone who understands the highly idealistic scope of what he is asking for.

  19. The UK today: a thriving cultural and economic power and a lovely place to visit. After embracing environazi policies: a third-world, subsistence-level economy, with warring tribes foraging for food. Full-reverse, captain, and make a course for the 3rd Century!

  20. NOTE:
    The letter acknowledges Thatcher as the originator of the climate change scare.
    Some on this website have trouble accepting that the Torie have always been the promotors of the need for crisis action against large industry and the working class.
    But it was true.
    And it still is.

    The UK has been among the world’s leaders on climate change ever since Margaret Thatcher warned three decades ago that humankind was “conducting an uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere.”

  21. Climate fanatics urge, “Push on a string. Just because it’s never worked before doesn’t mean it won’t work this time. You never outgrow your need for economically suicidal, futile gestures that put sane countries at an advantage.”

  22. ‘That’s close enough, let’s settle the lawsuit.’ We got through to Obama’s office but he decided against it. It was a tremendous opportunity. This was after Trump’s election, so if we’d settled it quickly the US legally wouldn’t be able to do the absurd things Trump is doing now by opening up all sorts of fossil fuel sources.”

    Hansen apparently isn’t a constitutional scholar or even understands much about the US constitution’s construction and framework. Article I of the US constitution empowers unto the legislative branch the exclusive power to make major US domestic laws. The Executive branch must faithfully execute those laws. The Judicial branch must faithfully uphold those laws. Neither the Executive nor the Judicial branch have the power to “legislate” such a major reshaping of US domestic energy policy as Hansen envisions, in order to bypass Congress’s unwillingness to do what Hansen wants.
    Sue-and-settle in itself was also a clear violation of the Administrative Procedures Act whereby Executive Branch agency rule-making must follow clear procedures, assessing impact, and time schedules for comment and review.

    It is one thing for an NGO like the Sierra Club or NRDC to sue the EPA to get a clean-up of a localized polluted site, it is entirely another matter altogether to attempt to get the EPA to issue a new Nation-wide emission requirements that reshape the entire energy infrastructure without any substantive backing by legislation passed by Congress and set into Law. And an Executive going along with such a “settlement” would clearly be in violation of his oath to protect the constitution and its requirement that he “take Care that Laws be faithfully executed.”

    In that regard, Hansen’s desire for Sue-and-Settle would also violate clear black-letter law on Administrative Rule Making to shape a new major domestic energy policy out of thin air. It would have never gotten past an obvious Appeals challenge to the Supreme Court. Its appeal and certain precedent-making slap down would also have endangered any future minor “sue-and-settle” attempts by a future Democratic Administration in place (post-Trump).
    The biggest reason Obama probably passed though was it would have severely further damaged Obama’s legacy, and thus further highlighting Obama as a lawless, rogue President who kept getting slapped down by the Supreme Court on all his major agenda items he tried to bypass Congress over.

    On Hansen: James Hansen clearly was in favor of federal judge “legislating from the bench”, but only to the extent it was legislation that he favored. A judge using similar constructed powers that he didn’t favor he would no doubt protest. Hypocrisy is rich in partisans like Hansen. That Hansen could still be called a scientist by those who favor his advocacy is an insult to science.

    • IIRC A good number of those slap-downs were unanimous decisions. When even the liberal justices on the Court are going hell-no, you know you’re doing something wrong.

  23. As far as I can tell the face of the guy in the photo of this blog post is the face of a guy who has committed fraud and deception knowingly and intentionally in front and towards a British Hose committee…very arrogantly, by relying in abuse of power and position of his given stand as a
    computer modeler and as self proclaimed kinda of scientist in charge person, in the matters of
    “The Ivory Tower” rules over all else in proposition.

    A proper heartless and mindless ‘hyena’ with no soul left there…but trying to cover his ‘crime” by keep going in the same direction of fallacy… knowingly!

    cheers

    • Those are harsh words, but in this case likely true. He is Oxford Prof. Myles Allen. Here is his vitae:
      https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/people/412

      Hard to tell what is degree is in. He teaches in the School of Geography and the Environment, so I’m guessing geography or computer modeling. He is also an expert in “climate dynamics”, which involves “quantifying climate impact”. So, looking at his papers and activities, it looks like his research and work centers around developing climate policies, activism and media personality. So, more of a “climate organizer” than a “climate scientist”.

  24. It’s impossible to get to zero emissions no matter what you do. So when the time comes and the country breaks the law, who gets fined? Oh, and who pays the fine?

    I’m guessing that if such a law were to be written, they’d have to apply it to specific items such as power generation. You could not do farming with zero emissions, or food processing, or industry, even transport is unlikely. Building any structure like a house, sky scraper or bridge requires concrete, resources and man hours.

    Law or not, it’s not possible to do. Whoever signed that petition needs psychiatric help.

  25. The last time there was Zero Emissions was before mankind started to use fire .
    Is it really a good idea to return to this?

  26. I hope someone is recording names and their crimes for the docket for after the Trump domino effect pinches out the last of this misanthropic, Malthusian scourge. I saw no crime committed at the beginning when the scientific community seemed to believe all this stuff, but when the Eastside Highway in NYC didnt get inundated by a rise in sealevel of 10+ feet by 2000 and tempersture rise predictions segued into “projections” after being out by more than 300% measured against observations and they doubled down on the alarm and adjusted thermometric data to fit the failed theory, yeah, that was felonious.

    When they tried to patch up this public relations disaster by pushing the starting date for anthropo warming from 1950 to 1850 to bankroll an extra 0.5C into the perilous warming ledger and then chopped the dangerous threshold to 1.5C measured from 1850 to 2100 (over 250 years!!!), yeah, you should be barred from practice like an engineer, doctor, accountant or lawyer would for malpractice. When the Dreaded Pause which lasted as long as the end of the millennium 2 decade warming stint that caused all the angst was Karlized out of existence, yeah that broke federal laws protecting the quality of data.

  27. What is unequivocal about some science that, after 40 years, has failed to find the fundamental sensitivity figure relating temperature change to a doubling of CO2?
    Honest scientists dismiss global warming because of this fail.
    Why do the named scientists ignore this failure? Geoff

  28. I’m pleased to see that they point out Margaret Thatcher’s responsibility for foisting this nonsense onto us.

    But May could not get Parliament to agree on a biscuit with her tea.

  29. I get annoyed that commentators blithely quote Margaret Thatcher as a champion of the climate change cause but convieniently fail to mention that by the time that she died she had come around full circle to having a sceptical view expressing in her autobiography the concern that climate change was being used for implementing a socialist anti capitalist agenda. I think that her about face should be lauded as one of the most significant high profile defections that have come to the sceptical side of the argument. She must rate as one of the greatest political leaders of all time and her ability to change her mind on such a subject should be seen as condemnation of the exact policies that this desperate group of scientists are proposing. She would turn over in her grave if she was aware that her name was being used in such a dishonest way for a dishonest agenda.

    • I think you’ll find that Mrs Thatcher clung to Climate Change because she was battling the oil barrons in the Middle East & the Coal Miners at home (who brought down a democratically elected British government under Edward Heath!), & she misguidedly thought it was a convenient device in that conflict!

  30. The UK emits 360 Mte of CO2 per YEAR.

    China emits about 10,800 Mte of CO2 per year. That is 29.6 Mte of CO2 per DAY)

    If we were able to make the UK carbon neutral TOMORROW.

    China would put all that CO2 back into the atmosphere in just 12 DAYS!

  31. In a way we should be pleased these “scientists” have turned to Theresa May for support. She has achieved something unique in British political history. She has knowingly and wantonly refused to enact the will of the people. For that her Party are in total collapse, her personal standing in society across the whole of Europe not just in the UK, is lower than any major political figure since the second world war.
    The “scientists” from Oxford involved in activities associated with promoting climate change alarmism, regard her as an ally.
    We can see why they would make the connection with such a failure.

  32. I continue to be truly appalled by anyone having the arrogance to believe that mankind can have any significant effect on climate compared to the ongoing and frequent effects provided by natural causes which have been in existence far, far longer than mankind!

    I trust the UK police will arrest and prosecute anyone overstepping the mark as regards legal protesting during Trump’s visit and that the courts severely punish them with custodial sentences and not a slap on the wrist!

    The best environmental protest during this state visit should be someone stringing a very large banner between Big Ben and the main Houses of Parliament ith the message, “CO2 is NOT a pollutant!”

  33. Since May ends in June, there is very little time to chat with visiting Trump – his priorities are the attempted shake-down of his presidency by the U.K. (as he repeatedly teeted) and sundry US “establishment” figures.
    The perps must be loudly and publicly identified.

  34. Oh, you are all missing the real point: Myles Allen refers to HUMAN emissions.

    Taken literally, that means ceasing to breathe. And no flatulence, either. We aren’t cows. They are allowed flatulence. He’s proposing that mass executions be approved by May before she leaves office.

  35. Mrs May Should take his advise ,
    she should lead by example.
    The lady should cease to emit Co2 immediately.
    God bless her soul.

  36. I have just read the article, and have sent Professor Allen this letter’

    “Dear Professor,

    I note you are asking Mrs May to pass a ‘zero emissions’ law, in other words you are lobbying for the coercive power of the state to be used to deprive your fellows of their liberty, on the basis of a modelled hypothetical level of damage, which we all know must await positive proof before it can be elevated to a scientific truth.
    However, in the meantime there is the troubling matter that the basis of the AGW model itself may be flawed.

    I wonder if you could cast your eye over Monckton’s latest article on Anthony Watts’ WUWT website, and let me know where you think he is wrong. If you cannot, and persist in lobbying for a change in the law, then this must raise a profound question of ethics notably expressed by Eliot where he defined the greatest treason is to have done the right thing for the wrong reasons.

    I look forward to your reply

    Yours, etc. ”

    I’ll let you know what he says, but won’t hold my breath as the house plants need that CO2 …

  37. Be petty and cowardly on the way out of office because we said so. Be a part of the tokenism of our time.

  38. Keep in mind that we would prefer you pulled the trick on the way out of office because we don’t want to show all of our cards with heavy handed EU and UN control efforts. Local effort looks better even when it’s wrong.

  39. Myles Allen was illustrating how much Co2 was now in the atmosphere when the judge rebuked him for using a misleading illustration that made the atmosphere appear to have more than 400 parts per million of Co2. “It’s 400 parts per million but you make it look like it’s 10,000 part per million,” he said. Professor Allen was forced to admit his slide was misleading. “Your honor is quite right,” he agreed…

    https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/03/22/climate-trial-a-bloody-nose-for-warmists-federal-judge-dismissed-claim-of-a-conspiracy-to-suppress-global-warming-science/

  40. The biggest laugh on their whole pathetic letter is quoting Margaret Thatcher and her legacy.
    She wished to be quoted on it in her memoirs, once the monster she unleashed got out of the box…

    Margaret said the “climate change” and “global warming” was a giant scam (of the scale of the USSR she worked very hard to dismantle).

    She rightly saw, but a little late (once out of the corridors of power), that the EU would ride this scam, because so many of its new and old members were unapologetic socialists cast loose on a moral morasse with no ideology to anchor to.

    She rightly saw this new unchained green lobby would manage to destroy wealth on the back of a new form of socialism to a success & scale undreamed of by the politburos of Eastern Europe….. then they brainwashed her grandchildren, (like the 16th century jesuits did to keep catholicism going),& just to make sure self harm would become respectable.
    There’s nothing new in the Self-harm rituals.

    I thought the British left the catholic church because Henry V111 couldn’t have a male child.
    Now they try to leave the EU but still want to be part of the cult that keeps people as willing victims of the next latest & greatest European idea.
    History teaches us that history teaches us nothing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *