Guest essay by Eric Worrall
“This could well be my latest campaign…”: Nigel Farage, Britain’s most determined politician, who gave over 20 years of his life to liberating Britain from the European Union, has a new goal.
I have been, since I sat here in this chair back in July, I’ve been saying that the rush to net zero, that the way in which its being done, is going to be ruinous. It will lead to yet more huge transfers of money from the poor to the rich, and given that China isn’t going to play the game anyway, by the looks of it nor is Russia either, what’s it going to achieve?
And I’ve been skeptical. I’m not questioning the fact that seven and a half billion of us on this planet must make some difference to the environment in which we live, and there are many things we could do better to have a greener world. I’m questioning the method by which we are going about this, and in the case of the Prime Minister now, what seems to be almost revolutionary zeal.
He’s pushing for Net Zero, but its supported by all the other parties in Westminster, massive, over 90% of MPs are strongly in favour of Net Zero, and yet, just like the European question, my sense of its been and a growing sense of its been, that out there in the shires, people are asking, hang on, who’s paying for all this? Are you serious?
I’ve got an old Edwardian semi-[detached house], its going to cost £20-30,000 to actually get it equipped, for a heat pump with all the insulation and other things we’ve got to do.
So the other day, in the Daily Telegraph, Alastair Heath the commentator, he proposed, well what about having a referendum on Net Zero? And extraordinarily, overnight the Telegraph have conducted a poll, and 42% of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, 30% opposed it, 28% said they didn’t have a view.
Well if you take out the undecideds, that’s 58% say they would like a ballot on the issue.
And that is very, very interesting, and we’re beginning to see on the back benches now, one or two people in the Conservative Party particularly, questioning what Boris is doing.
Now this proposal for a referendum, this idea that is being backed by voters, is likely to be something of an embarrassment to Boris Johnson, given that COP26 is just around the corner. But clearly a lot of you out there feel, this shouldn’t be done without you being asked, and this isn’t really what you voted for in 2019.
But is a referendum on a specific issue like this really feasible, or should referendums be saved for major constitutional issues?
Source: GBNews video (see above)
One thing I learned about Britons while living in Britain, is how determined they are. We’re talking about a little island nation perched off the coast of Europe, which once decided they wanted an empire, and didn’t stop until they had conquered half the world. Once they set their heart on something, they will endure almost any hardship, to try to achieve their goal.
But this national trait of utter determination can also be a curse. Enough Britons have set their heart on Net Zero for the programme to move forward, but Net Zero with renewable energy is impossible, for a nation which barely sees the sun 6 months of the year, and has wind droughts which last for a week or more.
I fear on this occasion the determination of Britons will lead them to a horrible place. Even when they realise it is hopeless, they will continue, ruining themselves, destroying their country, because a determined people like the Britons just don’t know how to stop, once they have set their heart on a goal – even if the goal is impossible.
Nigel Farage is perhaps Britain’s last hope of averting the net zero madness, before Britain utterly commits to wrecking their own economy. If determination is Britain’s national trait, Nigel Farage is a true son of that proud British heritage. But Farage is a lot older than the young man who set out to liberate Britain from the European Union. Even the determination of someone like Farage cannot continue forever.
Brilliant! I bet he can pull it off. When people realize what is really in store they will see the light
Farage is not on my christmas card list, I am promoting the message, not the messenger.
But I ask all UK citizens to sign and circulate this parliamentary petition to demand the UK
“Hold a referendum on whether to keep the 2050 net zero target”…_
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
Not a referendum. An election.
JF
when all major parties are parrotting the BS, where would help?
Signed. Already reached the 10,000 signature mark.
Just passed 11,000 – (Gov is obliged to respond when it passed 10,000)
I signed several days ago. The number was around 3000, now it’s over 11000. This means the government now has to publish a response. Not difficult to guess what kind of response it will be. They could just save time by having Greenpeace write it.
But if it gets to 100,000 then there has to be a parliamentary response, presumably a debate.
As Nigel Farage wrote, of those with an opinion, the majority want a referendum. It seems to me that it’s generally people who want to change the status quo who also want a referendum, so maybe the referendum could be won. The British people were not cowed by Project Fear. But *this* Project Fear will be far bigger. But at least we have the truth on our side. Trouble is, telling the truth doesn’t help if nobody is listening….
Chris
Thanks Digger UK – I’ve signed it!
It needs to be acknowledged that we aren’t winning the Climate Debate. But we are holding are own and constantly gaining ground.
The vast majority of EcoBlahBlahBlahs, from both left and right, have the majority of the front pages on the worlds media outlets for now……..let them enjoy it whilst they can, revenge is always sweet.
This petition for a referendum is an agitational tactic that can take our campaign forward in the UK. I have no delusions of a guaranteed win for us.
We will win this war one argument at a time, one new recruit at a time and one more sound scientific argument at a time.
This campaign for a referendum will allow us to show that freeborn citizens can Change the World in a more profound way than Climate Change ever can…_
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
People who wear blinkers rarely see the light.
We do need a referendum
I can’t see the dictatorship granting one
And yet there was Brexit.
Precisely
They won’t make that mistake again
Brexit referendum happened because pro Brexit groups sat in marginal seats. T scared the crap out of Cameron. It worked.s Can all be done again. If Nigel leads it, lots will follow.
All parties are fully signed up to net zero
That’s the point
Remember, all the main UK parties were signed up to staying in the European Union…_
The EU prototype for a one world government dictating to former sovereign nations that became states answering to the elites.
New world order.
Australia did not sign up at Cop26.
Even if they did they not likely to accept a no vote.
Cameron didn’t accept the Brexit vote, but at least he had the decency to quit.
He didn’t have the decency to see it through, at least to the point where article 50 was implemented, at the very least.
“I fear on this occasion the determination of Britons will lead them to a horrible place.”
I hope Worall is wrong about that! Is it possible that as a nation, the British et.al. are already committed to Climate Change fraud?
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/yougov-poll-finds-majority-british-public-want-uk-lead-world-tackling-climate-change/
Doesn’t say how much the public is willing to pay to combat CACA. And YouGov doesn’t have a great record.
YouGov produce numbers to nudge the public
I don’t trust any “poll” where they do not present the actual question asked and any biasing “context” they provided when doing so. Especially when the poll was commissioned by an activist group which says:
Read this great book on the subject on why fossil fuels are really the only option.
The moral case for fossil fuels
There are not many Britons that I know that support net zero. There is definitely not an overwhelming desire from your average working class Brit to rush headlong into this. The people I talk to down the pub all say the same “who the hell is going to pay for this”. If there was a political party that opposed this or at the very least tried to be truthful and rational then they would gather large support very quickly. There is no chance of a referendum on it as the political and metropolitan elite had their nose severely bloodied by Brexit and won’t make that mistake again.
Most of us are hoping that after the COP26 bollux dies down then the Boris rhetoric will also die down and some sanity may set in. what we need is a prolonged cold snap with becalmed conditions like last monday when wind was supplying a mere 3% of our power and coal came to the rescue.
Most people are struggling to pay their mortage, they do NOT need an extra 20y of debt.
This is an attempt to force you to remortgage your home.
The massive cost of all modifications amounts to a significant proportion of the value of a property. Virtually no one can afford that. That means more bank loans, more credit.
Once again, this has NET ZERO to do with ecology and “saving the planet” and is all about “SAVING THE BANKS”.
Just like the solar PV scam this is just backhanded way authorising increase consumer credit: the life blood of the blood sucking banking system.
If you think you’ve paid for you home and you own it, think again. The bank is about to take possession again for another 20y of payments. Are you ready ?
Quote:”This is an attempt to force you to remortgage your home.”
They did exactly that inside Covid:
How:
Yet the tough gritty and enduring UK folks walked right into that trap and are so dumb they don’t even realise. In fact, vast numbers are pleased with themselves at how their house is now worth so much more than it was.
Then, cynical heartless bastids freeze the rates od Inheritance Tax – so that when the Nouveau Riche house owner goes the way of the dinosaurs, Government takes an even bigger slice, (Stealth Tax is the official term)
The kids, had the house buyer made any, are left with nothing and perfectly No Chance of ever buying their own house.
Even worse, the kids are carted off to Brainwashing Dumps (sometimes called ‘schools)
Then we find that those virus and germ infested dumps (even before the teachers arrive) to find Government Cronies from Big Pharma are waiting to inject them with some untested Gene Therapy
This is the real ‘killer’ here: The kids are left to their own devices as to whether they will accept this ‘therapy’
Basically, these tough resourceful gritty and intelligent UK folks have:
It is perfectly totally and absolutely contrary to The Duty that All Parents have to their offspring – no matter if they’re human, bovine, ovine, triceratop, avian or invertebrate. Even bacteria do so by grouping together and hence getting: Safety in Numbers.
We group them together, lead them to unknown danger and abandon them.
Because some tin-pot self promoting expert practising Junk Science and Flat Out Quackery tells them to
Humanity is now Derelict of The Prime Directive of All Life On Earth
They are dumping their own children, for the sake of a ‘nice house’ a 10ft wide TV and fake bitcoin money, while vultures of Government and legions of Cronies eat them alive and fight over the bones
that is the madness here – it is perfect and complete
……….it is occasioned by starvation……….
Read this great book on the subject on why fossil fuels are really the only option and windmills and solar panels are bullshit.
The moral case for fossil fuels
If the voters get the TRUE numbers of what the increased taxes will be and how much MORE their utility and fuel costs will increase, this net zero crap will go down in flames.
It’s not just Taxes, that’s all smoke and mirrors to make the public believe the ‘government’ will be spending the money on NetZero.
It most emphatically will not be. The average householder will have to shell out between £75,000 – £100,000 to make their homes NetZero compliant. I know, I got the quotes which were confirmed by Professor of Engineering, Michael Kelly when he did the national sums.
Kelly also pointed out that we only have around one third of the skilled physical labour to accomplish this, so mass immigration will be required!
If we imagine the populace will baulk at the cost, wait until they hear two thirds of the workforce will have to be imported!!!!
There must now be a lot of people actually contemplating the cost. The problem is that as the supply of fossil fuels becomes strangled, their price will rise.
Retrofitting insulation is an expensive exercise. I expect there would be better value in just tearing down and starting again. Even more expensive but the result would be worth the effort.
I still see a lot of bad reviews on heat pump water heaters in Australia but someone from Finland has said the ones there are reliable.
Warning. warning.
A lot or reviewers versus some reviewer…
Sounds like a preference made the decision, not fielding all input.
Heat pumps work best when temperature changes are small and outside temperatures are relatively close.
The greater the temperature differences, the less a heat pump can achieve. Often the heat pumps revert to electrical resistance heating.
Using a heat pump to heat water up to 65° when the outside temperature is well below freezing is untenable. The heat pumps revert to electrical warming.
Using heat pumps to heat water when outside temperatures are in the 35° range is easy.
One wonders why someone in Finland believes their heat pump water heater is so wonderful? Perhaps their electric bill is subsidized?
Been reading a little on this. For an 1,800SF house in a cool/cold climate, the unit needs to be in a 12’x12’ room, WITH A HEAT SOURCE. There must be a way to heat the room air so the HP can extract the heat. So how is one supposed to heat the room???
For retrofits, most houses/apartments/condos have their existing water heater in a closet. There is no feasible solution to use a HP.
I have reverse cycle air conditioning that provides heat pump technology, the one I have does work well in not too cold weather, down to between 0-10 C in one medium size room, a larger capacity would require the house to be re-wired to handle the higher electricity load requited safely.
But my firewood heater provides far better warming and one heater warms the whole house for much less cost.
Who exactly do you think will tell them the truth? The Guardian, the BBC, Boris? All of the political elites, and all of the MSM, have been co-opted. Remember what Goebbels said about the “Big Lie”?
If they have a referendum, does this mean there will be a debate about climate change before the vote takes place?
This hilarious 13-minute video by a British heat pump installer is all the ammo Farage will need: https://youtu.be/GhAKMAcmJFg
If TPTB get their way on the Ref, many of the voters won’t be bill-payers. They won’t see more than Great Thugman sees: fairies. They will vote for anything.
I’m not a fan of Farage but he gets my vote on this one
Ditto
I’m not a fan also, by no means, but I agree with him in this one. However, if a referendum can be possible, all the numbers must be clear, mainly the costs. I’m afraid that the public opinion is so skewed by the media that this could lead to an even bigger problem, which is the legitimation of a huge mistake by referendum.
I wonder if my British cousins would take a moment to explain to this Yank what it is about Nigel Farage that is so off-putting to you that his reputation is uniformly negative here. He’s only known to those of us paying any attention as Mr Brexit and a friend of Trump.
Do you know the British classification of someone as a “used car salesman”? He doesn’t come across as being entirely trustworthy, in the main.
Oh look – 3 Nigel Farage fans really didn’t like that comment.
Look – my opinion is of how he comes across to me and I’ve never warmed to the man. What he may or may not accomplish is a different matter entirely.
So it’s a matter of not liking his personality?
He’s a career politician and I’ve yet to see one of those that comes across as a completely honest and likeable person. At least I’m being honest.
It seems that you are far from the only one who has the same impression. I can understand that he comes across brash and not the typical reserved British politician stereotype. I don’t know what his views are outside of Brexit but it seems that you suspect that his motivation was not a sincere belief in national sovereignty, but in some way self-promotion? This latter point seems to fit a certain upper class mop-head better in my uninformed opinion.
I agree it fits some people far better but it isn’t just the one person – there are quite a few that it fits, to a greater or lesser extent.
I’ve yet to see a politician who isn’t like a used car salesman, with the exception of Ron Paul.
And Tony Blair. He’s less like a used car salesman and more like a serial killer.
Career politicians – seems to go with the territory. Doesn’t mean I have to like it (or them) though.
I think the issue is that Nigel Farage very much speaks his mind about controversial subjects and holds many beliefs that a lot of people hold too but don’t want to admit to it. It’s much the same with the Tory Party here. In the run up to elections people are reluctant to admit they will vote for them, so predictions tend to be very inaccurate. Thank goodness for secret ballotting!
” But is a referendum on a specific issue like this really feasible, or should referendums be saved for major constitutional issues?”
It IS a bloody major constitutional issue !!!
Aside from the current market-generated price peak, which was brought on by a radical if temporary imbalance in supply vs demand triggered by COVID last year, when people find themselves living permanently at a lower standard of living, they aren’t going to take it well. Rhetoric by both sides of the warmunism argument are only arguments over political theory .. reality is when somebody has to write a check, or give up on doing things they used to enjoy. When that happens there will be hell to pay in any nation that attempts to radically wean the people off cheap energy.
I question that. From what I read, a large proportion of Germans are having to make a choice between paying their utility bills and buying food, with hundreds of thousands having their power cut off for non-payment, and yet the Greens did quite well in the last election. The poor have little political power, and the elites that run the major power structures don’t care about them one bit.
The chattering classes can go down weird paths. As Michael Crichton pointed out, eugenics was quite popular. Then, after the NSDAP, no one admitted to ever having entertained such notions.
Well, yes – until the toxic, gene-altering stabbings!
huh?
I’d like someone to link us to a reputable source of information on the “gene-altering” effects of Wuhan vaccines.
Aren’t you able to dig up for yourself that the “vaccine” is not a vaccine, it is a chemical coctail created to train your cells, hence your genes, to recognize a snippet of an alleged harmful influenza-version called Covid-19?
You could start by reading up what the vaccines are engineered to do?
Oddgeir
Eh, that snippet… You can find it in MANY viruses. So you are training your cells, hence your genes, to attack also useful virus which holds this snippet.
Oddgeir
That snippet is a portion of the exterior of the virus. It’s useless to train a white blood cell to react to a portion of a viruses rna, since those aren’t detectable by a white blood cell.
And no, altering of the dna of cells in the immune system is not how the immune system is trained.
All vaccines train your immune cells to recognize foreign proteins, and no, that does not involve gene manipulation.
Perhaps if you took your own advice and educated yourself regarding vaccines.
Is there a difference between J&J, Moderna and Phizer?
yes. They use different techniques to accomplish the vaccines goal.
Oddgeir, you need to read the new book “A shot to save the world” by Gregory Zuckerman.
This tells the story of the development of Wuhan virus vaccines like the Moderna vaccine.
It blows up the conspiracy theories surrounding these vaccines.
The anti-vaxxers just can’t help themselves from trying to hijack the comments sections of articles that have nothing to do with the vaccine. They’re as bad as the sky dragon slayers.
If people were told of the real costs of net zero, nobody would vote for it. New Zealand’s net zero target has been independently costed at 5 trillion dollars. The equivalent cost for Britain is 50 trillion pounds.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/
Sadly, your comment started with “if”. Not bloody likely I’m afraid, unless you have a plan to get a majority of the country to read WUUT.
“Green technology is yet to ride to the rescue. The Climate Change Committee, which advises the government, recently chided Johnson for his ‘techno-centric’ approach to reaching Net Zero emissions by 2050, suggesting that given where the tech is at the bulk of restrictions will have to come from ‘behaviour change’, from people doing and consuming less.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/04/environmentalism-cannot-survive-democracy/
Who in their right mind would vote to make life worse?
That’s why you can bet there will be no vote – without a fight and a dirty one at that
Once the energy price-hikes begin to bite over the winter and into 2022, people wil begin to baulk at the route to NetZero in ever increasing numbers. With any luck, by next summer the whole idea will be electoral toxic waste. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
Yes – especially if we get some more calm weather periods with the deadly (literally, if in deepest winter) resultant blackouts.
It is, however, tragic how long most of the sheeple take to recognize a kick in the ghoulies!
The New Green Agenda isn’t about saving the planet or reducing carbon, it’s about autocratic control by globalist elites and crushing the populace.
It’s no coincidence that the people pushing vaccine mandates and vaccine passports and net zero are the same people.
this book explains what the co-called green movement is all about, and its nothing to do with “saving the planet”
Read this great book on the subject on why fossil fuels are really the only option.
The moral case for fossil fuels
But the price hike has been framed as due to an over-reliance on “volatile” (in cost) hydrocarbons. The usual idiots are demanding that we move faster to renewables to counter the problem… of too many renewables.
See also my post on Cliscep: https://cliscep.com/2021/10/17/when-a-shortage-means-you-have-too-much/
Yes Jit, it’s a nice try at deflection but it won’t wash long term. Plenty of folk already up in arms at having installed heat-pumps and finding their (green) electricity bills are now astronomical. Same will happen when folk are forced to switch to electric cars, even the most deluded will surely begin to see the emperor has no clothes.
one cold winter will be enough to bring people back to their senses and flush net zero crap down the shitter.
How can you have a fair referendum when propaganda is used instead of information and any skepticism is censored?
In a referendum there has to be a debate and a campaign
You can only prevent that by not having a vote
Yes but the media would hold the debate between the Cons, the Libs, the Labs and the Greens. Not much chance of the average man in the street learning about reality. Hence, the well-known meme, “Is that the truth – or did you hear it on the BBC?”!
Project fear has a habit of falling
The media did the same thing with the Brexit debate. Net-zero referendum would see the public vote overwhelmingly against net-zero which is why a referendum will never be granted.
Yes Rusty. Demanding a referendum is the way to grab the government by the scruff of the neck and bring their feet back to ground.
The nasty experience of having so badly misread the public at Brexit means they will never throw themselves off another referendum cliff.
The one thing that is missing is a coordinated voice to represent the call to abandon NZC. This leaves the government too much latitude to deflect a campaign into some dead end, and then press-on regardless.
The sceptic side needs to get itself organised, make sure there are clear objectives, clear the decks of any loose cannons, and don’t delay.
But what if the debates are carefully chosen between selected professionals, i.e. fanatical warmists v. timid lukewarmers? Or good informative debates don’t get reported either on TV or print? One of the major hurdles in the UK is the lack of alternative views on climate in the MSM, epitomized by the dominance of the BBC, which is still a bible for many and the Beeb have absolutely banned any and all views challenging the AGW mantra. It must also be remembered that Gates finances most British media, including the BBC.
“One of the major hurdles in the UK is the lack of alternative views on climate in the MSM,”
That is *the* major problem. The climate change propagadists are in charge of the debate.
MSM propagandists are the major cause of all our problems, in every category. All we get from them are distortions of reality, which is injurious to a self-governing people.
100%
A referendum on the subject would be scuppered as surely as the 2020 Presidential election.
The result would do as much damage to the UK, in as short a space of time, as that Muppet who succeeded Trump has done to the US.
You didn’t see the propaganda before the EU referendum. Cameron, the Prime Minister at the time claimed it could lead to WWIII. Even Obama came over here and said we’d be back of the queue* regarding any trade deal once Brexit happened.
*We knew that phrase was written for him because an American would say back of the line.
It was relentless and to a certain extent still is because everything bad is blamed on Brexit.
Just remember what happened to the Poll tax.
Revolt and making government policy unenforceable is only just around the corner.
You only need a tiny minority to jam the court system solid, then the legal system and government becomes permanently illegitimate.
You can’t lock everyone up, only the ER types and the loonies that block roads..
Just saying!
A sliver of rational thinking still exists among the alarmist “fire in the theater” tax you brigade.
The most stupid idea Nigel has ever had.
“I’m not questioning the fact that seven and a half billion of us on this planet must make some difference to the environment in which we live, and there are many things we could do better to have a greener world.”
We are making a difference Nigel, and we do have a greener world thanks to increasing atmospheric CO2 thanks very much.
Starting from the position you express you are already on a hiding to nothing.
Don’t we imagine the massed MSM joining ranks with the BBC wouldn’t see this as an opportunity to swamp the electorate with misleading and dangerous propaganda?
How about Facebook and Twitter. All the excellent scientific reasons against NetZero simply deleted and commentators cancelled. I mean, it’s been happening for the last few years, and it would only get worse.
How about the fanatical politicians with vested interests and cushy jobs to go to, after the populace is battered into submission, with the nice, generous renewables companies, or renting out their lands to wind-farms?
Just how do we get our messages across to the myopic sheep who never ask any questions far less seek out the answers on ‘Denier!’ web sites?
The fact is, COP(out)26 is doing the job rather well for us. The obvious own goal of Xi and Putin refusing to attend has been compounded by Modi of India demanding $1Tn dollars to help with greening of his country.
Then there’s the recent announcement that Germany has persuaded the EU to designate Natural Gas and Nuclear as green. Germany would, of course, because they have about the most expensive electricity prices in the world and Russia is holding them to ransom for Gas.
Nor can Boris come back to Westminster from Glasgow and expect anyone to replace their Natural gas boilers for wildly expensive Heat Pumps when Gas is Green. This is an utter disaster for Boris’ madcap plans.
Dr. John Constable of the GWPF was at pains to point out to a House of Commons select committee that the UK was well on it’s way to a green transformation by substituting coal for gas before moving the country to Nuclear. The contemptible old hag on that committee who accused him of being a denier is now going to be forced to swallow her words. The rest, to be fair, gave him a fair hearing, and he was very convincing.
They will all now be reflecting very carefully on that hearing today.
As for sleepy Joe, nothing is going right for him. He’ll head back to the US with his tail between his legs and people will demand answers over him banning fracking now Europe has designated Gas as Green (subject to crossing ‘T’s’ and dotting ‘i’s’ I suspect).
Cop(out)26 appears to be the best thing that could have happened for the sceptics in decades for many more reasons than I can express here.
Nigel should remember Bonaparte: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. A referendum merely changes the dynamic and risks handing the initiative back to the loonies running the asylum.
I once had a one on one with Nigel for 20 minutes at a book launch, he is no climate activist. Under Nigel UKIP once appointed Lord Monckton as their climate spokesman. But he does care about forest management and green spaces.
Yes, and the comment mentioned above was merely meant to tell folks his attitude is not that he doesn’t care about the environment, but that it’s not necessary to destroy capitalism to keep the environment healthy.
“The fact is, COP(out)26 is doing the job rather well for us”
True, and the publicity means there is no better time to launch that petition. There are very many people who have their heads in the clouds about the Great Junket, and the BBC loves to show us the Halloween Party of frightened children tramping around Glasgow.
But there are many people who are heartily sick of it. Sick of private jetting around. Sick of people preaching the tired old doctrine of the Doomsday Cult. Sick of Greta Doomberg. They are sick of being bombarded by talk about pledging their lives away, banning and taxing their freedoms back into the middle ages.
The government knows this, but suppression open debate leaves them with absolutely no way to judge the balance of opinion. What people might say when asked in public might bear no relationship to what they would do in the voting booth. That’s exactly what happened at Brexit – the government, the institutions and the media got the surprise of their lives.
They are in the same blind position as they were at Brexit. They felt confident at Brexit and were shocked. They can never be so confident again and that leaves them full of doubt.
This is the right time for the sceptical community to make a move in the UK. It will never get to a referendum, but the sceptical community needs to organise to be able to constrain all the slippery wriggling that will come.
Now if only some American states would have such a referendum! In particular, CA and MA which already are committed to net zero. Not sure which other states have such a plan.
Oregon too by 2030. No diesel trucks, to start got to do everything California does..
The movement for the
East side to join Idaho looks better and better.
hmmmm… the PNW shut down the forestry industries (more or less) and now it will shut down everything else
in MA only electric cars can be sold as of ’35, full net zero by ’50 (not just electricity- but everything)
I won’t be around to see the state of MA fail- or if I am, I’ll be 100- I’ll have to celebrate that failure.
ah, but there won’t be enough diesel trucks in a mere 9 years to supply all of the needs of the state. So either they say “never mind”, or they set another 5 year plan, that will be replaced by another 5 year plan, that will be replaced….
Waving at you from the south, Joseph, from the DPRC (Dem People’s Rep of Connecticut) where our Dear Leader Gov Lament is showing us the way to Green Serfdom.
Ca is already a state run by the elites for the votes of the wealthy and famous, the poverty stricken, and the homeless, Anyone with half a brain and any hope for the future has either already moved, or is busy packing.
I think the biggest advantage of a referendum, and perhaps even more so for the battle to have a referendum, is airing a lot of dirty laundry. Way too much dark money pushing the lies, way too may celebrities (“people who are famous for being famous”) jumping on the bandwagon for personal glory. Get those jet-setters out in the open, get the facts out in the open, force the alarmunists to either defend the indefensible or hide from the truth.
People support all this crap only because the media have so warped things. Public debates over holding a referendum, and then a referendum itself, will uncover a lot of slime hiding beneath those media rocks.
Well if it is a net 58-42 for a referendum, that means it’s 58-42 against net zero. Anyone for net zero will be against a referendum because they are already getting what they want.
If the technology were actually there, and they weren’t relying on things like biomass which is as bad as coal.
No, biomass is not as bad as coal. it’s not bad at all- but some people here just can’t grasp that so I won’t bother trying to enlighten you.
JZ
“50 years a forester”
There’s nothing wrong with coal.
Right, and biomass isn’t worse than it.
Is that so?
For example, what is the biggest emitter of CO2 in the UK? That would be the wood burning Drax power station.
They cut trees down thousands of miles away and then transport them those thousands of miles to burn them at Drax.
Burning wood for energy produces more CO2 per watt of energy than does burning coal.
But Drax has no ‘accountable emissions’, none, it just has real emissions. That’s because it is ‘renewable’.
Apparently, if you cut down a tree, that has been sequestering CO2 for 50-100 years and burn it to release all that CO2 in an instant then that is not ‘accountable emissions’ because you supposedly planted another tree, even though that other tree will take 50-100 years to sequester the same amount of CO2 you released in an instant.
Of course, even that depends on you actually replacing all the cut down trees and we don’t!
We have been reducing forest cover on the planet for decades and continue to do so. Replace one tree (with a tree that is actually going to take 50-100 years to become truly a renewable) but then just cut down and not replace another tree down the road.
Want to reduce real emissions, not ‘accountable emissions’ at Drax? Then dig up some coal in the UK and burn that and leave the tree in the ground thousands of miles away. Your ‘accountable emissions’ have gone up but your real emissions have gone down.
Now what were you saying about biomass being better than coal?
Only a moron would just look at the chimney- instead, open your eyes and tract the carbon (assuming that’s important) at the forests. If the forests continue to have the same or more carbon- then the forests are not a source. The fact is that the forests in the American southeast are GAINING carbon, despite some trivial percent going into biomass for Drax. And, regardless, most people here don’t think carbon emissions are a problem- only lame, lefty fools who’d like to shut down our civilization. And, without markets for all wood in those forests- much of that land will be converted to shopping centers and other urban sprawl.
“Of course, even that depends on you actually replacing all the cut down trees and we don’t!”
You have NO idea how forests are managed in the US southeast!
“We have been reducing forest cover on the planet for decades and continue to do so.”
Converting forests to other uses- like urban sprawl- that’s what we must avoid. Continued management of the forests for products WE ALL LIKE and need- to keep the forests as forests- that’s what’s important. Managing forests for products for humans- is NOT “reducing forest cover”.
Before you make such lame comments, try asking the experts on that subject, instead what you read in green publications.
Why are you talking such utter bollocks?
Forests on the planet are not containing the same amount of carbon, we are cutting them down and not replacing. We have massively reduced forest cover in the last few decades and continue to do so.
Where does it matter where you cut a tree down, it is the same planet?
You cut a tree down in the US to burn and release that CO2 it has been sequestering for 50-100 years and plant another tree, have you replaced all that CO2 you released in an instant? How long will it take for that sapling to sequester the same amount of CO2 you have just released.
How long does it take to sequester the CO2 involved in transporting that wood thousands of miles to the UK?
How long does it take to sequester the additional CO2 released because you burned wood instead of coal, dug up in the UK, which would have released less CO2 per watt of energy than the wood?
How many more trees per year will you have cut down and burned in this timeline, given Man’s energy use is increasing, you are on an exponential tree burning timeline
Give me the timeline and numbers.
You see, the replacement tree can never replace all that additional CO2 involved in the process of burning it thousands of miles away.
Of course, we aren’t replacing the trees anyway, if we were, forest cover would not be reducing, would it, so you are talking additional bollocks.
So I await your timeline with interest.
There is nothing wrong with biomass cogen. Like taking waste from a sawmill or pulp and paper operation and burning it to produce power.
But pelletizing entire forests to generate power is short sighted and generally ridiculous
Who the hell is pelletizing entire forests? NOBODY
Most of the wood goes to sawlogs- some to pulp mills- some to firewood- what can’t go to those HIGHER VALUE markets, MIGHT go to chip mills. I’m amazed that some people here must be getting their forestry ideas from The Sierra Club. You’re right, cogen is BETTER but it’s not possible in all areas because the power plant isn’t near enough to populations. If this wood isn’t used for chips, those trees WILL be cut down and rot in the forests (releasing most of the carbon within a decade or so) or more likely, they’ll be burned in the open, releasing FAR MORE real pollution plus CO2.
I believe global warming skeptics need to stop letting global warming agitators set the agenda. By using their terms i.e. net zero you are letting them set the ground rules.
Does anyone even know what net zero is? I don’t and I doubt a majority of those who are going to end up paying for net zero know either. Oh sure I have some vague notions like we must not pollute, we must save the earth, we must save ourselves, we must save the plants and animals, we must progress and move forward, we must leave the past behind and on and on.
Skeptics need to define net zero in their terms, truthfully and honestly. That definition needs to be included in every article and every response to every article concerning net zero. Repeated over and over adnauseum.
A clear and precise explanation of what carbon dioxide is and what it isn’t needs to be included in every article or response to an article about net zero. Many many people do not understand how critical CO2 is to life on earth, it is past time to start teaching rather than just responding to extremist gibberish.
I suggest you google “fascist censorship”… 🙁
Even today, in the US, where at least half of the country voted for Trump, no major news organization is allowed to even mention electoral fraud, except to say “Trump’s malignant lies”…..
The Rasmussen Poll, which I find to be the most honest and non-partisan poll, just asked “has Cancel Culture gone too far”?
And 72% said “YES’. But they are afraid to say that publicly. Why? Because cancel culture has gone over the top, but people are afraid to say that in public, lest they be cancelled.
I don’t disagree with you, however the climate radicals are getting a free ride by using bumper sticker terms and slogans that are not clearly defined and everyone just figures the other guy knows what it means. I don’t think it means a thing, it is a nice compact non offensive way to say we want to control you and everything you own. They aren’t going to define it, that is why we must.
Oh, that’s easy! “Net Zero” refers to how much money you’ll have left to spend on food after you pay your heating bills.
I vote that as comment of the month!
I also dont know what the hell “net zero” means…but it does sound insidious…like the way to achieve it will require some sort of Final Solution.
Can you see the BBC having to present even handed debate on climate change?!!! 😂😂😂 The BBC’s idea of a ‘debate’ is having four people from one side of the argument spouting their alarmist BS!!!
They took a massive gamble and lost with the EU referendum and have been working since to make it leaving but not really. Can’t see them making that mistake again.
The madness of crowds – they return to sanity one by one, I heard it said.
Memoirs Of Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds
Charles Mackay 1852
Should be compulsory reading and comprehension testing for all school students.
(Especially you, Greta)
This should also be required reading.
The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements
Farage called for re-invading Afghanistan. The sun has set and he cannot see the New Silk Road….
And just look at Brexit – in Name Only. The EU follows exactly the same CO2 insanity, so what did Farage achieve?
Sure looks like Farage serves the City of London….
And Constitutional Issue – what Constitution? Prince Charles wants to declare a Terra Carta, Magna Cara on eco-steroids. Eh?
Go Nigel! 👍
Go. Nigel. Please?
Yes, please do what the timid and compromised, not to mention the bribed, don’t dare to do….
Go Nigel!!!!
The scary thing bout Capitalism it is exactly like Communism in that the people at the top chase mottos, not ideas. Even worse, if someone proposes an idea, the leaders are so purely educated they cannot evaluate it.
So they hire a STEM major from their own party, whole keeps his income by being an ass kisser, not a true, doubting Scientist. And he/she writes a report that can be summarized “Didn’t you hear the motto?” The leader published the report, and they are off to the races.
Nigel is older than that, and he is getting old. Hopefully he will touch basis with that nut from Benchley.
There is section on Climate Change in this fictional speech by Donald J. Trump:
Trump Fiction – by C. M. Compton – Optima Sperando (substack.com)
I’m smelling a lot of discontent over Boris net zero. Farage, has form in the tail wagging the dog and winning.
If we have a ref on NZC we must not allow 16-year-olds the vote: they are the children of the BBC and its propaganda. We would be lost to the NZC-Youth.
That said, after the oldies have shuffled off the only people left to pay for the NZC crap in the log term will be the (then, not so) young people who voted for it years before. I wonder what the Chinese is for ‘poetic justice’ (真是理想的因果报应)
Don’t confuse the public with politicians. Mark my words; there’s no appetite for net-zero amongst us plebs. We know how much it’s going to cost us.
Most people don’t actually have a clue. If they really understood, they’d already be rioting.
Britain has an interesting history. The original Britons are the Welsh. The Britain of today is shaped by three major influxes of people. 1. Saxons. 2. Normans. Normans were more Viking than French. Normandy was founded by Rollo the Viking, ancestor of William the Conqueror. 3. Post-WWII migration.
Are today’s Britons really as determined as in the past? I think Brexit tells you that they are. A major campaign for a net-zero referendum could get very interesting. Go for it!! Actually, every country heading for an imposed net-zero should have one. Polls repeatedly show “climate change” at the bottom of people’s list of concerns, and that they are not prepared to pay any “carbon” price. If the political parties won’t offer any alternatives, a referendum appears to be the only non-violent solution. Boris has let his country down very badly – he was elected so that these stupidities wouldn’t happen, and now he’s the cheerleader for them.
Britain has a far more interesting history than that – the original inhabitants were reduced in number, probably by disease and an influx of a different people during the bronze age, that would become the brythonic Celts of the iron age, moved in. Interestingly enough, ‘Welsh’ is a Saxon word meaning ‘foreigner’, which is how the Saxons viewed the romano-britons that remained in Strathclyde, Cornwall and Wales which refers to the place where the Welsh live.
Kindly leave us Welsh out of it.
We had enough with Kinnock, the labour party and the English without getting blamed for yet more stuff from the other side of the Offa’s dike and the “sais”invading to invent yet another costa geriatrica.
Luckily it rains a lot in Wales so it puts lots of other invaders off.
Speaking as one of Irish descent, we always raided Wales from the other side anyway.
do you know what Brexit has done for Britain?
no one to drive lorries – empty shelves in supermarkets all filled with sovereignty!
No one to pick farm produce – left to rot
No one to operate slaughter houses – pig killed and burned.
shortage of chemicals for waste treatment = sh1t discharged into rivers
Queues at passport controls for UK being non EU citizens.
Free EU travel and work removed
Dover cannot handle all import customs checks so none are being done.
delays at ports mean fresh produce rotting at ports.
building of vast lorry parks for lorries trying to cross channel
Universities missing out on funding
fishing wars between uk and France
financial institutions moving to EU.
RNLI life boat personnel rescuing immigrants in channel run risk of imprisonment
need medical insurance to travel to EU – costs – was free
and of course the FU in northern Ireland
The really sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that Brexit is the cause of all those things.
Pretty much every country on the planet is having trouble finding workers and having problems getting on time deliveries.
The only thing in that list that could even remotely be caused by Brexit is the loss of free travel to the EU, and that’s no loss.
Sadly you don’t run an import / export business.
If you had anything to do with that, you would realise you are talking bollox…
In the EU we have no problem at all “finding workers and having problems getting on time deliveries.”, it’s just they are being done by Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Polish, as you will note by seeing the vast fleets of Polish vans running all over France & Germany.
I have my Schengen situation perfectly under control, so I & my family can work unlimited wherever we choose….so “the loss of free travel to (in) the EU,” would otherwise make it impossible for expats to earn a living if I hadn’t sorted that out….(THANKS MATE!)
Brexit has moored my previously successful import business in space all this year.
All of us expats are talking about the nightmare it is to deal with the UK.
I am still waiting for delivery of a vital pallet of goods for 6 months.
It’s destroyed my entire production and earnings for this summer, so I went off for 3 months to do sweet F.A, hoping to come back with something changed.
Came back, still sweet F.A possible. (great!)
A customer of next week doesn’t know when he will get his spare parts (sent DHL express).
They are stuck in customs since yesterday (ACTUALLY IN GERMANY) should be delivered tuesday,- I am supposed to be using them for a job on that day and fly there on a flight I can’t book ‘cos we don’t know F.A, –
but on the basis of the track record, could be delivered anything up to 10 days later, throwing my entire production schedule out of joint in the run up to christmas, and making sure I & many of us like me will do anything ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to avoid buying anything in the UK….
Ie. if you don’t have a clue what you are on about stop talking utter cr.,p
yep it’s all going well in the EU – https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/controlled-demolition-eu
I can’t be bothered to go thru the list but let’s do the top 2 –
Europe’s trucker shortage becoming ‘extremely dangerous …
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.ft.com.icohttps://www.ft.com › content › e8ca2a08-308c-4324-8ed2-d788b074aa6c
The shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers is widespread across Europe, reaching 80,000 in Germany and 400,000 across the whole EU, according to industry associations. They warn the situation is …
Europe’s new jobless urged to pick fruit amid huge farm …https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.eco-business.com.icohttps://www.eco-business.com › news › europes-new-jobless-urged-to-pick-fruit-amid-huge-farm-labour-shortage
Europe’s new jobless urged to pick fruit amid huge farm labour shortage … Germany is the world’s fourth biggest asparagus producer, growing about 130,000 tonnes a year. The “Spargelfest” (asparagus party) is an annual highlight in many places when communities gather to savour the slender white vegetable, sometimes referred to as “edible ivory”. After closing its borders on March 25 …
Hey it’s the person who told people to drink bleach…shame on you Ghalfrunt
derg DH
Are you drinking bleach?
I’m not sure I could have put this point any better:
“And I’ve been skeptical. I’m not questioning the fact that seven and a half billion of us on this planet must make some difference to the environment in which we live, and there are many things we could do better to have a greener world. I’m questioning the method by which we are going about this, and in the case of the Prime Minister now, what seems to be almost revolutionary zeal.”
The bolded text is the real consensus. Of course, we have! Of course, we can!
“Hear, hear!” and three-cheers, Nigel.
Have a look at a wasted opportunity for the Prime Minister at COP26. Here’s what he should have said.
https://
JFwww.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-sensible-speech-on-climate-the-pm-will-never-make/
I don’t believe that very many people are aware of the cost and the dislocation caused by net zero. A campaign outlining that with the no side telling lies to the same extent that the greens do will wake ’em up.(I mean it has to be conducted fairly, and as the greens have had 25 years to learn to lie the doubter’s will have to pick up their game.)
New fund-raising idea for the no-to-zero case: take your children on a holiday to Mexico. Throw them across the US border and run away. Joe Biden will then give you $450,000 USD for being “forcefully” separated from them.
But he’s only proposing to make those payments to those who crossed the border illegally during Trump’s term. The families that were separated prior to Trump and after Trump, get bumpkis.
Of course, prior to Trump is Obama, he who can do no wrong, and after Trump, well, they’re not being separated anymore, they are just being let in…
They are still being separated.
Go Nigel!
I liked the post a few weeks ago about the German parents letting their daughter actually experience ‘going green’. I know most of our loony left leaders (of all parties) wouldn’t do it but it would be great to let the younger generation experience it by taking away their phones, smart watches, laptops, nice warm houses, cars and buses and any other tech that will give them an idea of what it is they’re wishing for.
I lived through what was called “The Winter of Discontent” in the 1970’s when our local hardware shop was rationing candles, paraffin and bottled gas and we would spent our time wearing almost every piece of clothing we had to keep warm.
I hope God gives Nigel the time strength and will to take this on we the Brits have a huge debt we owe to this mans determination.
James Bull
This is an attempt to force you to remortgage your home.
The massive cost of all modifications amounts to a significant proportion of the value of a property. Virtually no one can afford that. That means more bank loans, more credit.
Once again, this has NET ZERO to do with ecology and “saving the planet” and is all about “saving the banks”.
If you think you’ve paid for you home and you own it, think again. The bank is about to take possession again for another 20y of payments. Are you ready ?
you just made that up: no evidence for it. No requirement for it!
Nobody said there was a direct requirement.
However it doesn’t take a financial genius to figure out that if you require every homeowner to take out massive amounts of money to make required changes to their homes, that most of them will have to take out mortgages to cover the costs.
Not quite right. Who are these determined Britons of whom you speak? They appear to be non existent, and like the mythical fairies, only exist by rumour. Most ordinary Britons are not XR or the Glue-yourself-to-the-road association. They are normal, hard working people trying to make a living for themselves and their families. They will not take kindly to acts of destruction on their lives, like taking away their cars, their warmth and making energy so expensive that all the old pleasures like holidays have to be curtailed.
Well, none of that alarmist stuff is going to happen, is it?
We already got to 42% renewables, only 2% coal electricity and 48.8% reduction on 1990 CO2 and it had no effect on the UK populace whatever.
Blah, blah, blah as usual.
There is no lie so discredited, that griff won’t repeat it over and over and over again. So long as the funding holds out.
Doing 42% for 5 minutes, once a year, is not the same as doing 42% all year long.
I do hope the UK commits suicide with the idiotic “net zero”, it will show the world the folly of such a fantasy. So I am cheering on Boris “I need a comb” Johnson.
I remember a Monty python skit where people were jumping off a cliff in order to open up jobs to younger people. One cheap and easy way to achieve “net zero” is to enourage the climate cluckers to jump off the nearest cliff.
As a Brit I totally agree, & the sooner the better to get it over with.
Hoping for a long hard winter, blackouts, deaths from cold & food + fuel shortages.
Sad, but that’s the only way people will see whats coming & fight back, because people won’t learn from history.
Great. I’ve been hoping he’d get involved in the climate change issue for years.
And what should the question on the referendum be? When we had the Brexit Referendum we had 5 years of Remainers challenging that “Brexit” wasn’t defined. Did it mean leaving the Single Market, the Customs Union, the European Court of Justice? Or all of the above? Hence phrases like Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit ete etc.
“Should the UK abandon ‘The Zero Carbon Target by 2050’, would be inadequate….as it’s open to someone coming along and targetting 2051 or 1% carbon emissions ete etc.
A question could be “Should the UK Government leave UK energy supply to competitive Market forces, while mitigating any abnormal weather related consequences?”
The road at the moment is to introduce sub-optimal, expensive intermittent solutions like wind and solar without appropriate backup.
I’m not holding my breath.
At least a major power outage in mid-winter leading to deaths from cold is a possible game changer much as that would be a disgraceful failure of the governments role to protect the population of the country.
“And what should the question on the referendum be?”
I think it should be: Does CO2 need regulation or not?
From the article: “But is a referendum on a specific issue like this really feasible, or should referendums be saved for major constitutional issues?”
On this particular climate change issue, I think it is just as important as a constitutional issue, because Net Zero as currently planned, will destroy the UK. What’s more important than that?
We need national referendums in the United States. I would like to vote against some of Biden’s insane ideas.
And btw, have you noticed, in the last week Republicans have picked up several U.S. House of Representative seats in the special elections that took place, and now the Democrats only have a majority of three votes in the U.S. House. A few more of these special elections and the Republicans may have the majority in the House. And that would be before the 2022 elections come around. Wouldn’t that be interesting.
The idea of a referendum on a countries plans for ‘net zero’ is a good idea, though there may be a more propitious time.
I know folk on here get all het up about the adjustments to the temperature records, forcing the trend ever higher. It doesn’t bother me though because that will just get us to that ‘dreaded’ milestone 1.5C even quicker.
The alarmists, foolishly, brought down the tipping point from 2.0C when the big ‘pause’ was in operation. They should have left it there because we are going to be reaching the revised disaster point pretty soon, especially with a few more of the ‘adjustments’ they no doubt have in their tank.
Then, when we hit the +1.5C disaster point, what are the public going to see, what are they going to experience? Will food production collapse, land disappear beneath the seas, living conditions become unbearably hot where they live? What?
Of course, they will experience no difference, life will be going on as before, human numbers will continue to rise, food production will continue to set records, depending where they live they will be putting extra clothes on and turning the heating up for big proportions of the year (UK).
So the big scare number will have arrived and it will be like the people who walk around with the “end is nigh” signs, once it doesn’t happen they get ignored and laughed at.
Why would anyone take a blind bit of notice of people who warned of the disasters people would experience at +1.5C when nothing happened. Oh for sure the alarmists will just revert to a new number, “well we really meant disaster will be 2.0C or 2.5C actually”.
However, fewer an fewer people will be listening to their BS. You get one chance at an irreversible disaster forecast, fail that and you are on the path to total irrelevance.
As I wrote to my MP confirming that I had signed the petition and asking for his support:-
[…] I am notifying you that I have signed a petion for a Referendum on Net Zero proposals and hope that you can give this support.
I freely acknowledge that it is almost certain that a referendum would NOT be agreed, let alone succeed if it was, because it would be highly inconvenient for HMG and every other political party represented in the UK. Not to mention all those who, in the last 30 years, have either enriched themselves with useless “Renewable” energy or a multitude of other pseudo-scientific scams, or who have been subjected to the behemoth ‘Project Fear’ that has been successfully mounted by successive administrations to endorse and promote their chosen and annointed “The Settled Science”.
But I suggest that any referendum might prove useful to more easily identify those who have promoted or actively supported the actual existential threat of the Net Zero religious campaign and, when both the impossible project and the economy go over the cliff, can then be held to account.
A reinvigoration of the old Treason Act would also be most welcome.
I would be delighted to discuss this with
you in person, should you so wish.
At least I have tried.
Yet again.
I’ve signed. it’s a must; but much depends on the question being asked.
The public must be made well aware that one Trillion equates to 1000 Billion or 1000,000 million thus every Trillion bandied about by the U.K. Politicians equates to a cost of £16,130 to EVERY person in the U.K. (U.k. population taken as 62 million here).
There are some weird economists about these days such as Mark Garney recorded as saying that the money is there. It NOT. This money must be eventually given VALUE by the sweat of wealth creation by the population over the ensuing years.
The U.K. – USA Lease Loan (is that the name?) during WW2 is an example of this. It took some 70 years for this to be paid back; done recently I believe. Few if any knew that this cost every year was included in their tax returns.
To me it would be unethical to pass this burden on to the next generations.