Climate Crisis? What Climate Crisis? Part Two: Where We are in the UK Today

By Neil Lock

This is the second in a set of essays about the issue generally known as “climate change” or “global warming.” In the first, [[1]], I looked for evidence to support the claims of catastrophic climate change, caused by emissions of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) from human civilization, which have been and are being made so frequently and so stridently by green activists and alarmists. I found no such evidence.

When I embarked on the writing of this second essay, my target was to pull together, all in one place, the full back-story to these accusations. I started to document, in some detail, how the United Nations, governments, mainstream media and others have joined together in a project, whose objective appears to be no less than the destruction of our human industrial civilization. But the tale grew in the telling. After several weeks of work, I realized I had far too much material to be able to tell the story all in one go. I therefore determined to split the back-story into more digestible chunks. That in itself was quite a task!

I am presenting this back-story with a particular focus on climate policies in the UK. In my researches, I have made some amazing, and unsettling, discoveries about how dishonestly the UK government has treated us. But I’m sure that those in other countries will be able to find parallels from their own experiences.

I ended up with a revised plan, which required splitting the back-story into four parts. So, there will now be five essays in the set, not two as I originally planned. In this, the second, I’ll give you a feel for how badly the UK government has been treating us on this issue over the last few years. In the third, I will trace the back-story up to the Rio “Earth Summit” of 1992. The fourth will cover the back-story from 1992 onwards, with the exception of the thorny issue of cost-benefit analysis, which I will discuss in the fifth and final essay.

2019: a year of madness

To summarize the UK government’s handling of the “climate change” issue in recent years, I chose to pick a relevant date in the recent past, and to begin my account from that date.

The date I chose was April 30th, 2019. That day marked the start of a huge wave of UK government activity, all directed towards killing the mobility, freedoms and prosperity of ordinary people in the name of some claimed (but, in reality, non-existent) climate crisis.

Extinction Rebellion

On that day, April 30th, 2019, minister Michael Gove met with Extinction Rebellion (XR). There is a video of the meeting, here: [[2]]. I only watched a small part of it. But, particularly in the light of subsequent destructive actions by XR, the chumminess of this meeting is very concerning. And they got to see Labour politicians, and the mayor of London, on the same visit! The Guardian commented on the meeting here: [[3]].

Later in the year, south-east England’s anti-terrorist police included Extinction Rebellion in a list of “extremist” organizations. Though they were eventually forced to withdraw this.

“Climate emergency”

On May 1st, the day following that meeting, the parliament declared a “climate emergency.” Without any hard evidence that any such emergency existed, and without even taking a vote.

This is typical of how today’s political classes operate. They bring up some problem, which may or may not be real. They blow it up until they have made it look like a really big issue, that needs to be “fixed.” They then “fix” it by making bad laws, which seriously infringe on basic human rights. Climate is not the only case in point; just recently, the UK political class has done exactly the same thing on the issue of asylum seekers arriving by boat across the English Channel.

In any case, as I showed in the first essay of this set, there is no “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” in the real world. The “emergency” or “crisis” of May 1st, 2019 only existed in the minds of those seeking to use climate as an excuse to make bad laws and hurt people.

Interestingly, on May 2nd, Sky News published the results of a poll [[4]] of a random sample of their subscribers. 56% said they would be unwilling to drive significantly less to protect the environment. And 53% said they would be unwilling even in principle to significantly reduce the amount they fly. Clearly, the politicians had lost the plot, and were completely out of touch with the people they were supposed to be serving.

“Net zero”

In June 2019, the government put forward, and the parliament passed, a bill to set “a target for at least a 100% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 1990 levels) in the UK by 2050.” (At least 100%? Maybe more? Crazy).

This target, called “net zero,” replaced an earlier target of an 80% cut from 1990 levels. An official government web page describes this, indeed, all but crows about it: [[5]]. This was at least the fourth time since 1992 that the UK government had moved the emissions goalposts. Always in the direction of greater reductions, of course.

The CCC Net Zero report

The report which supposedly “justified” this, called “Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming,” came from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). This committee was chaired by John Selwyn Gummer, also known as Lord Deben. The CCC is supposed to be an independent and impartial advisory body. But in my view, it’s about as impartial as Extinction Rebellion.

You can find the report at [[6]]. But I don’t advise you to read it, unless you’re a masochist. I tried to read several different bits, and on each occasion had to give up in less than a page. It reads like nothing more than a gigantic exercise in virtue signalling, and I can’t understand why any sane person could believe anything in it.

All I gleaned from it is that they reckoned the cost of “net zero” measures might be 1-2% of UK GDP in 2050. But, as we know, government projects always cost more and take longer. So, I think one to two pinches of salt are in order.

UK Climate Assembly

Parliamentary select committees also initiated a scheme of “citizens’ climate assemblies,” one of the demands put forward by Extinction Rebellion. It’s amazing, and very concerning, that in a so-called “democracy,” those who are supposed to serve the people kow-towed to disruptive extremists, but never even bothered to ask us the people what we thought.

The result was a “UK Climate Assembly,” which eventually produced a report in 2020. I’ll discuss that report in the next section.

Absolute Zero

In November 2019, a joint report called “Absolute Zero” was published by five UK universities, using the collective moniker “UK FIRES.” For a summary, see [[7]]. The purpose of this report seems to have been to soften people up for the de-carbonization of Western economies, which national and international political élites want to force on us all.

After just a single pass through the diagram summarizing the proposals, I could see that the whole idea was a dystopian nightmare. The proposals read like the edicts of a crazed, ultra-conservative dictator. And they made Soviet five-year plans look like a cake-walk.

The general election of 2019

In a sense, the UK general election of December 2019 didn’t change anything, because it kept the Tories in power. One issue completely dominated that election: Brexit.

Myself, I was well aware that an awful lot was wrong with what the Tories had been doing to us. But I regarded Brexit, and in particular getting away from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), as a sine qua non for any kind of improvement. I had gone so far as to become a member of the Brexit party. I had been agitating as hard as I could for the party to commit to getting “net zero” and the rest of the green agenda reviewed by outside, independent auditors; but they weren’t yet ready to do that. Despite this, and despite having been a conscientious non-voter in UK elections for 32 years, I was ready to vote for my local Brexit candidate. But when Nigel Farage withdrew all the candidates in Tory held seats, he was one of them.

The Tory manifesto proposed “the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.” “We will lead the global fight against climate change.” And a lot more crap like that. Even if their candidate had not been Jeremy Hunt, I could never have voted for the party. So, I returned to my conscientious non-voting. But many people, who just wanted Brexit done and didn’t care a damn about the green agenda, were fooled into voting for that agenda by the Tories’ promise to “get Brexit done.” The Tories had offered people a carrot with a huge turd on it. And far too many people took the bait.

2020-21: no let-up in the madness

You might have thought that, with COVID-19 exploding on to the world scene, and people being all but confined to their homes for weeks or months at a time, there might have been some let-up in the mad rush towards the green cliff. But not so.

Extinction Rebellion dig up a lawn

If anyone still needed to be reminded that Extinction Rebellion are destructive and extremist, an event in February 2020 provided such a reminder. XR dug up a famous lawn at Trinity College, Cambridge: [[8]]. The lawn is famous, because it backs on to the staircase where Isaac Newton used to live, and has an apple tree (but not the one that prompted him to think about gravity). Oh, and Trinity was my college.

The UK Climate Assembly report

The UK Climate Assembly produced a report in September 2020. A summary is here: [[9]].

The assembly “asked citizens to listen to advice from climate experts,” before setting them to make “a list of recommendations for how the country should reach net-zero emissions by 2050.” The first “expert lead” was Chris Stark, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, which has been driving the “climate change” agenda in the UK since 2008. A second was Professor Jim Watson, the chair of the “UK Net Zero Advisory Group.” And a third was the director of the “Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations”: [[10]]. Not exactly independent or unbiased experts, then.

The assembly’s final report “recommends changes across a broad range of sectors, from meat-and-dairy consumption and air travel through to zero-carbon heating and electricity generation. Measures receiving high levels of support from the assembly include: a levy for frequent fliers; a ban on the sale of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030-35; and a switch to a more biodiversity-focused farming system.”

What a travesty of “democracy” and “consulting the people!” Obviously, with such biased “experts,” there was no possibility of the assembly members ever being told the truth, or allowed to express their reservations. And anyone who thought “net zero” was unnecessary or counter-productive must surely have been purged from the assembly even before it began.

The Ten Point Plan

In November 2020, the government published their Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution [[11]]. The phrase “green industrial revolution” was lifted by the Tories straight out of Labour’s 2019 manifesto! I set out my own views on these matters here: [[12]].

I suppose this plan was a little less extreme than “Absolute Zero.” But of the ten points, only one (expansion of nuclear power) seems to me to be clearly a sensible path to take. Some parts of another (better flood defences, and planting more trees) would likely produce some benefits.

The rest, I find highly dubious. (Much) more off-shore wind power? It didn’t succeed last time it was tried, and the costs look to be far greater than has ever been admitted. Low carbon hydrogen? A costly and dangerous pipe-dream. Electric vehicles replacing fossil-fuelled ones? Impractical for many; unaffordable for most; and the scale of the electricity grid expansion needed was grossly under-estimated.

Public transport, cycling and walking? Impractical for very many journeys. In particular, you can’t use public transport that isn’t there at all, or doesn’t run when you need it. You can’t cycle easily in hilly areas. And you can’t walk on a journey if you have a big load to carry.

“Jet zero” and green ships? Another pipe-dream. Greener buildings? Very expensive, and extremely disruptive (though they have since walked back the proposal to ban new gas boilers in pre-existing homes). Carbon capture? Unproven, and horribly expensive. Green finance? The only beneficiaries will be politicians, financiers and big-company bosses.

In summary, these “net zero” proposals were and are, in no particular order: Not properly costed. Not properly thought through. The benefits are unsure. Pie in the sky. Very expensive. Seriously reducing, or even destroying, freedom and mobility for many ordinary people. Disruptive and potentially dangerous. Likely to raise the costs of travel and of trade. Requiring huge investments of money that people don’t have, in order to bring about a lower standard of living than we have now. Already been tried and failed in one country or another. Requiring huge tax rises. All but certain to tank.

And the costs will fall on, guess who? Ordinary people. What will we get in return? We will suffer unnecessary disruptions. We will lose freedom and convenience. We’ll be poorer. Our lives will be worse, not better. And we will get little, if anything, of any positive utility to us.

Besides which, where are the feasibility studies for each of these proposals? And where are the objective cost versus benefit analyses? I’m willing to bet they haven’t been done at all.

COP 26

Then there was the UN “Conference of the Parties” meeting in Glasgow in November 2021. Its stated purpose was: “to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” And its theme statement was: “uniting the world to tackle climate change.”

As I wrote at the time: “Like bidders at an auction at which they are spending other people’s money, politicians fall over each other to make commitment after commitment on behalf of the people they are supposed to (but fail to) represent. These commitments, they must know, if carried out will cause severe pain and inconvenience to very many ordinary people. And those people have never even been consulted on the matter. But drunk with their sense of power, they plan to go on regardless; for it’s our money they are spending, not their own. And we are the ones who are and will be suffering the pain and inconvenience, not them.”

As an example of some of the crap spouted by the UK government in Glasgow, consider a commitment made by then education secretary Nadhim Zahawi. “Young people will be empowered to take action on the environment as part of new measures designed to put climate change at the heart of education.” This is on an official government web page: [[13]]. If that isn’t indoctrinating young children with propaganda, I don’t know what is.

But the results from Glasgow were not entirely catastrophic for those of us who are implacably opposed to the green agenda in all its forms. There were some high-profile non-appearances. Putin stayed at home in Russia. Xi, likewise, stayed home in China. Modi went home to India, having announced plans that will surely disappoint the extremist agitators. And remember, China and India between them account for 36% of the world’s population. There did seem to be a sense that the green leviathan had, at last, encountered a certain degree of resistance from a few countries that had worked out that it isn’t in their interests to stay on that bandwagon much longer. That’s encouraging, but not nearly enough yet.

The war on our cars

But the great bulk of the actions that UK governments, both national and local, have been taking on the green agenda in recent years, have been those directed towards their long-planned objective of forcing ordinary people out of our cars.

Sham “consultation”

In July 2021, the UK government held a “consultation” on “bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible.” I myself submitted a 58-page, detailed response. My response, and the responses of others like me, to that “consultation” were totally ignored. And the ban was moved forward to 2030. The whole “consultation” was a sham.

Recently, this subject has been in the news again, as the EU, pressured by the Germans, have started to back away from their own similar commitment, which was only due to come into force in 2035 anyway. I expect the pig-headed UK government to bury their snouts in the sand on this one, and stay on their course to civilizational suicide. Indeed, prime minister Rishi Sunak announced, just recently, that car makers will have to ensure that 22 per cent of the vehicles they sell in the UK are all-electric by 2024: [[14]]. That’s next year!


One of the organizations which has been driving the green agenda, particularly in London, is C40: [[15]]. C40 is an international organization, which describes itself as “A global network of mayors taking urgent action to confront the climate crisis and create a future where everyone can thrive.” C40’s mission, so they say, “is to halve the emissions of its member cities within a decade, while improving equity, building resilience, and creating the conditions for everyone, everywhere to thrive.” Moreover: “C40 member cities earn their membership through action. C40’s most distinguishing feature is that it operates on performance-based requirements, not membership fees.”

And every year, they hold a world mayors’ summit, at which they gather and gab about forcing us to reduce our emissions, for example by making us walk or cycle instead of driving our cars. But not many of them actually walk or cycle from their homes to and from the mayors’ summit, do they? What a bunch of hypocrites.

C40 has, so its website says, been in existence since 2005. I retched when I found out the name of its founder: “Red Ken” Livingstone, former mayor of London. But in retrospect, I found it hardly surprising, since I already knew the identity of its chair, the current mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Put Boris Johnson in between them, and you have three extremist green stooges in a row as mayors of London.

The London ULEZ expansion

Which brings me to the London Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). This was originally planned by Boris Johnson, but introduced by Sadiq Khan in April 2019. More proof that the two main UK political parties are both hives of green zealotry.

I can’t resist a bit of a plug for my own work, even in a different field (air pollution). In 2017, I published some social cost calculations on air pollution from cars in the UK, together with a lot of background and back-story on the issue. You can find that paper here: [[16]]. My conclusion was: “There is no case, on social cost grounds, for such charges on Euro 5 diesels (2010 to 2014) or on any petrol cars. For all these cars, the excess of the social cost of the pollution they emit, compared to a new (Euro 6) car of the same type, is £25 a year or less. Two entry fees to the London ULEZ would cover the social cost of this pollution for a whole year. To levy such outrageous charges on drivers of these cars is unreasonable.”

The ULEZ was, from the start, a money-grubber for Sadiq Khan and Transport for London. As well as being a way to impose what are in effect fines on car drivers. An independent 2021 study showed that any improvement it might have made in air quality was only marginal: [[17]]. More recently, even the “science” that, allegedly, shows that significant damage is caused to Londoners’ health by air pollution from cars, is being increasingly questioned. Yet, Sadiq Khan has planned to extend the ULEZ throughout all the London boroughs from August 2023. We hear he has already bought cameras to enforce it: [[18]]. And it looks as if the police will have access to those cameras, too: [[19]].

But this time, Khan isn’t having things all his own way. Four outer London local councils, together with Surrey County Council, are challenging the ULEZ expansion in court: [[20]]. We shall see what the High Court will have to say. Khan himself has started to get more than a little rattled and emotional, as this video shows: [[21]]. And Gareth Bacon, MP for Orpington in outer London, has highlighted that the ULEZ extension isn’t about improving air quality, but about raking in money. If Khan is not stopped, we will be seeing gilets jaunes, or worse, on the streets of outer London. In fact, the movement is already starting: [[22]].

 “Smart Road User Charging”

But harassed London drivers – and, in time, the rest of us – will soon be under further attack from a slightly different angle. There’s been a recent “consultation” on “smart road user charging” in London: [[23]]. According to the consultation document, this is meant to “address the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion.” The consultation period in this case was remarkably short, only just over a month. Suspicious? This does appear to be still in the relatively early stages of discussion, and I won’t say more until I see the detailed proposals. But given how fast our enemies like to move, it could be with us sooner rather than later.

UK national road charging

Then there is the matter of a national road charging system. A report from 2022 is here: [[24]]. One proposed option, which seems to be favoured by many of those involved, is “a road pricing mechanism that uses telematic technology to charge drivers according to distance driven, factoring in vehicle type and congestion.” Does this mean, as the word “telematic” would seem to imply, tracking in detail every single car journey made anywhere in the UK? And does it mean charging so much for journeys made by petrol and diesel cars, that those who can’t afford to buy electric cars won’t be able to afford private mobility at all?

The latest I have been able to find on this is at [[25]]. It includes a copy of a letter from Jeremy Hunt, chancellor of the exchequer – “Chief Thief,” in my parlance. Hunt states “the government does not currently have plans to consider road pricing.” But I know Hunt. He is, after all, “my” MP, and far worse than useless as a “representative,” because he is hostile to virtually everything I stand for, including honesty. So, I read that statement as “we aren’t considering it, because we decided long ago to make it happen, and we’ve already started implementing it.” Expect this issue to rear its head again, sooner rather than later.

Oxford traffic filters and “15-minute cities”

But right now, “ground zero” in the fight for our rights and freedoms against draconian green policies is the city of Oxford. In November 2022, Oxfordshire County Council decided on a plan to install traffic filters in six key locations around Oxford. There is a description of the proposals here: [[26]]. The filters “are intended to reduce traffic levels in Oxford by targeting unnecessary journeys by cars.” Who are these arrogant sods, that they claim a right to decide that someone else’s journey is “unnecessary?” Or a right to “target” anyone?

Residents in Oxford will be able to get a permit to go through the filters on 100 days a year, and residents in Oxfordshire but outside Oxford city on 25 days a year. The web page says nothing at all about how much these permits will cost, or how the rules might be changed in the future. Those snapped going through the filters without a permit will be fined £70. Like Sadiq Khan, I think, those favouring the filters have their eyes on the money, as well as on hurting people they don’t approve of.

There was a “consultation” period in September and October 2022. Local people have told me that the vote was over 90 per cent against the introduction of the filters. But Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council dispute this figure: [[27]]. What the councils say there suggests that there was no question in the questionnaire, to enable respondents to say how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the scheme! If so, that’s bad questionnaire design. Or, perhaps, the questionnaire was designed to avoid a result the councils didn’t want.

In any case, the data they give implies that, of the 6,190 comments they counted from 4,814 respondents, 4,213 (68%) were against the scheme, 656 (11%) were for it, and 1,321 (21%) were against it unless and until public transport was significantly improved. That looks like between 68% and 89% against the scheme. Still a very significant majority against.

Yet Oxford residents were told, just after the consultation ended, that the scheme will be going ahead anyway: [[28]]. So much for any pretence of “democracy!” Moreover, when a public debate was held on the issue in early March, the councillors responsible for the scheme were invited to attend and speak, but did not bother to do so. Only one Oxfordshire councillor turned up. And he was from Witney, 12 miles away from Oxford.

Closely related to the traffic filters is the “15-minute city” project, which seems to be a project of Oxford City Council rather than the county council. It’s hard to find an unbiased view of what this is all about – google “Oxford 15-minute city” and virtually all the links you get will be views from extreme greens, accusing those opposing the idea of being “right-wing conspiracy theorists,” “flat earthers” or spreaders of “fake news.”

The question this raises in my mind, though, is why the hell councils are making “local plans” for us, without us having ever had the chance to scrutinize them or object to them? I don’t want my life planned by some bunch of bureaucrats. The only person entitled to plan my life is me.

UK 100

“UK 100” is an organization, about which I only found out a few months ago. It describes itself as “a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target.” This looks like the UK equivalent of the C40 global network of city mayors.

Their membership page [[29]] begins: “As local leaders across the UK, we recognize our responsibility to tackle the climate emergency and take bold action toward Net Zero.” The About page says: “UK100’s primary purpose is to support a local-led rapid transition to Net Zero and Clean Air. We do this through collaboration. To accelerate action, we believe in bringing together the most influential leaders across the country to learn together and agree on priorities for legislative and regulatory change while empowering them to engage with national decision-makers. We provide our network with the knowledge, tools and connections to make this happen.”

From the list of members (I counted 108), it seems that this is not an organization of mayors, or of individual politicians, but of councils. It includes councils at both the county and district levels, sometimes overlapping. Many of the expected suspects, that have been taken over by green extremists, are there: Bath and North East Somerset, Birmingham, Brighton, Cambridge (and Cambridgeshire, too), Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, 11 London boroughs plus Westminster, Oxford (and Oxfordshire).

That Oxford and Oxfordshire are both in the list, suggests that UK 100 may well be the force behind the goings-on over the proposed Oxford “15-minute city” and traffic filters.

There are 13 county councils in the list, including the county in which I live (Surrey). That there are this many, suggests that the extremists do not intend to stop when they have reduced all the UK’s cities to the status of unfit for human beings to live in. It looks as if they plan to carry on extending their mad, bad schemes to towns, to suburbs, to villages, and eventually out into the countryside.

Cebr report

Now, a small piece of good news. In October 2022, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr) analysed the costs and benefits of the 2030 ban on sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles on the UK. You can down-load this report via [[30]]. As far as I am aware, it was the first attempt by professional economists in the UK to do an unbiased, objective cost-benefit analysis on any part of the green agenda.

The take-home message of the Cebr report is that “the benefits to UK households of implementing the fossil fuel vehicle sale bans are far outweighed by the costs.” The costs of the bans to ordinary people in the UK, as calculated using the government’s own cost-benefit methodology, will be more than five times the “benefits” from the savings in carbon dioxide emissions and pollution.

Beyond this, they revealed that the number the UK government uses to calculate the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions by a tonne (£255.40) is more than five times the sterling equivalent of the US government’s published value of the “social cost of carbon” per tonne (£48.54). I repeated Cebr’s calculation of the costs versus benefits, using the US government number rather than the UK. My conclusion was that the costs exceeded the “benefits” by a factor of more than 15.

To their credit, the Sun did report this at the time: [[31]]. But it made no difference whatsoever to the government’s position. The final report of their “review of net zero” [[32]] merely says: “It is not a cost-benefit analysis but a first step in understanding trade-offs over a 30-year economic transition.” In other words, they’re going to do the “net zero” crap to us anyway, and stuff how much it costs or hurts the plebs. How much more dishonest can you get?

Rampant hypocrisy

Throughout this saga, on top of their thinly veiled arrogance and pervasive dishonesty, you can see the astonishing hypocrisy of many “net zero” promoters. They want to force draconian and damaging restrictions on how ordinary people live, while themselves enjoying their jet-setting, limo-riding lifestyles, many of them at taxpayer expense!

In 2020, for example, the then Prince Charles, a major promoter of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset,” travelled to Cambridge to give a speech about cutting aircraft emissions. He made the journey by helicopter! [[33]]. He could be the king of bloody England for all I care. But this incident shows him up for what he is: a prat and a hypocrite, unable or unwilling to practise what he preaches. Charlie Chump, as I call him, should have walked or cycled on that journey, as he wants to force us to.

And the politicians are just as bad. In the middle of the CoP 26 gabfest in 2021, prime minister Boris Johnson flew from Glasgow to London by private plane, for no better reason than a dinner engagement: [[34]]. Alok Sharma, minister responsible for hosting the CoP 26 conference, at the time ran two diesel SUVs: [[35]]. And more recently, prime minister Rishi Sunak has made a habit of using Royal Air Force planes to get to his engagements: [[36]].

If you really want people to believe any of your “nett zero” nonsense, you wallies, you must live nett zero, and be seen to do so. Hypocrisy in government, or indeed any dishonesty towards the people government is supposed to be serving, ought to be a dismissal offence.

To sum up

In the last four years alone, the UK government has been, again and again, tyrannical and dishonest on the “climate change” issue towards the people it is supposed to serve.

It has fraternized with extremists like Extinction Rebellion. It has declared a “climate emergency,” without any hard evidence of such an emergency, and without the parliament even taking a vote. It has mandated emissions reductions that, if informed in advance of their likely consequences, we would have rebelled against. It has moved the emissions goalposts, always in the direction of greater reductions. It has erected a supposedly democratic “assembly,” and made it nothing more than a rubber stamp for a pre-determined agenda. It is seeking to make it all but impossible for those, who cannot afford to buy electric cars, to retain their personal mobility.

It has laid down, and is implementing, policies which go very seriously against the interests of the people it is supposed to be serving. The effects will be disruptive, and will severely and negatively impact our freedoms and our prosperity. And it is doing these things to us without proper feasibility study, or proper analysis of the costs and benefits or of the risks.

On the occasions where it has allowed us an apparent say in the matter, it has ignored our views. It has conspired – yes, I do mean that word – with international parties to develop and promote an agenda hostile to us, the human beings it is supposed to serve; something that no democracy should ever do. It has encouraged extremists to force that agenda on to us at the local level as well as the national. It is indoctrinating young children with lies and scares. And in all these things, it has behaved with arrogance, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

We, the people, want all this climate crap stopped. Now. And we want our money back!





































4.8 33 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 12, 2023 6:35 am

Oh well, you do have another King Charles. But no sign of another Cromwell.

Joseph Zorzin
April 12, 2023 6:49 am

I can only wonder what Churchill would say about all this.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 12, 2023 7:28 am

I don’t think it would be printable.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 12, 2023 10:08 am

Something about crocodiles I suspect.

April 12, 2023 7:12 am

UK100, full name UK100 Cities Network Limited, Report and Financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2021:

5. Grant Income

During the year ended 31 December 2021, the company received grant income totalling £1,346,943 … This amount included £456,000 … which was recognised in respect of the IKEA foundation.

Much as I love their meatballs, I have shopped my last at IKEA.

J Boles
April 12, 2023 7:34 am

But notice the overall trend…to help mother Gaia one must FIGHT the people, and then reward ones self for doing so, by living high on the hog. Oh the hypocrisy it burns.

Curious George
April 12, 2023 7:36 am

“the destruction of our human industrial civilization”
No, they merely want to destroy capitalism. But all alternatives have proved much less human.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Curious George
April 12, 2023 8:53 am

Oh but they do want to destroy human industrial civilization.

Cue the Soros quote.

Beta Blocker
April 12, 2023 7:44 am

In the meantime, for those of you in the UK who look to nuclear as a zero carbon alternative to wind and solar, take a gander at this:

Nuclear Now, A New Film by Oliver Stone Opening April 28th

For those climate skeptics who promote nuclear as a zero carbon alternative to wind and solar which actually works, recognize that the nuclear industry is deeply engaged in promoting the ‘climate change is dangerous’ narrative.

The true value of nuclear is that it gives the nations which adopt it a measure of energy security and reliability in the face of uncertain energy supplies — but at a cost premium over what gas-fired generation can deliver.

April 12, 2023 8:32 am

It’s simple–just mandate free fusion power for all by 2035 and relax all other mandates and policy reach. /sarc

Philip CM
April 12, 2023 8:36 am

We are never getting our money back, and the avenues of taxation built into the “greening” of all our individual countries could never all be traced and removed by any single sitting government there in.
An ideological shift away from the current climate hysteria would have to begin at the level of local government and then be adopted up the chain of governing to the national level. Then it would be expected, government being government, that any green tax that benefit government spending would not be done away with. So, the ever-invasive taxing would continue as du jour. God only knows what that will look like if the powers that be get to inflict digital currency on the working public. If that happens it certainly will not be “your” money anymore and taxation, well, that will just be the State reclaiming what is the property of the State.

Reply to  Philip CM
April 13, 2023 4:30 am

“An ideological shift away from the current climate hysteria would have to begin at the level of local government”

It needs to begin in Grade 5

April 12, 2023 9:25 am

Q. What’s the difference between conspiracy theory & reality ??

A. 3 to 5 years

Reply to  1saveenergy
April 12, 2023 10:26 am

Conspiracy theories now rebranded as Spoiler Alerts

Peta of Newark
April 12, 2023 9:32 am

What’s described is a group of people, comprised of individuals, who are in a state of blind panic.

They have been confronted by something they don’t understand, have no prior experience of and more so, do not possess the mental agility, intelligence or education to make sense of it.

And that is what ‘panic’ is and it brings on all sorts of crazy, ill-conceived, unthought-through irrational behaviour.
They just do anything and try everything to try and make the scary ‘thing’ go away, and go away as quickly as possible.

Now steady on Peta” you may say. “that was a bit rough, and a bit personal to boot

There you see how The problem has afflicted everyone, that even you assume that I’m taking a personal dig at them. An Ad-Hominem attack

BUT but but. That may apply if only one or two individuals were affected – there may be a genuine (medical) reason for their behaviour or some personal circumstance.
e,g Boris Johnson addicted to sugar & booze – or Brandon with advanced Type 3 Diabetes

But an entire generation behaving like that?

(you know me, you know what I’m talking about = consumption of sugar)

Where the panic becomes truly scary and dangerous for the rest of us is that our leaders, the ones affected and who can ‘action change’, actually do believe in their deranged state that the thing that caused their derangement is the cure.

perfect positive feedback

Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 12, 2023 11:59 am

people seemed equally prone to panic in society for 1000 of years. We’re they all on a high sugar diet? Or are you being sarcastic? I think the problem is with the primitive nature of some peoples brains not sugar.

April 12, 2023 9:38 am

How they detest us, but that’s nothing new.

April 12, 2023 10:33 am

42^42 stars.

A nest of vipers swarming.

It’s an absolute necessity to inform the public about the evil these snakes are inflicting, but sadly insufficient. Often now my friends and neighbors speak of violence as our only remaining option. Voting? Don’t make me laugh. Desperate times require desperate measures.

And that scares me much more than any purported “climate change”.

April 12, 2023 11:07 am

Is that Lord Deben in the picture?

It doesnot add up
Reply to  corky
April 12, 2023 2:19 pm

I think it’s a depiction of Michael Gove. Who fawned over Greta when she visited Parliament.

comment image

Gove, Laya Moran (ultra green Lib Dem), Ed Miliband, Greta, Caroline Lucas (the lone Green MP)

CD in Wisconsin
April 12, 2023 11:36 am

“I am presenting this back-story with a particular focus on climate policies in the UK. In my researches, I have made some amazing, and unsettling, discoveries about how dishonestly the UK government has treated us.”


Having been a firm believer for some time now in the warnings that George Orwell left behind for us with his ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four,” I keep looking at back at the 30+ years that the UN, the govts of the world (including the US and UK) and the media have spent promoting the climate alarmist narrative.

I can’t help but conclude that this massive act of deceit is inconsistent with the principles of democracy to which all democratic govts should be committed. It is something that Big Brother would do in Orwell’s novel for the purpose of the power and control needed to drive activist agendas, regardless of the the public support for it. Since Orwell was British himself, I would think that Britain would be the last country in the world to engage in this massive farce.
Do they not teach Orwell’s novel in British schools?

That the media has been complicit in this only makes it worse. Our cellphones, computer screens and televisions become Orwellian telescreens to serve Big Brother’s purposes.

I don’t know if I will live long enough to see this end. If I do, it will be a cause for real celebration.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 12, 2023 3:20 pm

Nineteen Eighty-Four, was meant to be a warning;

Instead, it’s been used as an instruction book !!!

Dr. Bob
April 12, 2023 12:04 pm

There are several studies that address the real emissions benifits of ZEV’s vs vehicles running on renwable and synthetic fuels, and even on conventional fuels.

Gary Yowell, formerly of the California Energy Commission, wrote an SAE paper showing that cars running on renewable fuels have lower GHG emissions than EV’s and have no meaningful impact on air quality. How Do ZEV Emissions Stack Up Against Super-Clean Gasoline and Diesel Engines? – Stillwater Associates

I have analyzed the EPA atmospheric pollutants data and charts which show that LA and Orange County in SoCal are nearly as clean now as Mendocino County, a rural costal location 100 miles north of SF. There is always some contaminants in the air, and LA/OC are approaching the minimum values due to background contamnants such as biogenic hydrocarbons like terpenes which contribute to smog but are naturally occurring.
Gary also pointed out that the current US diesel exhaust emissions are so low that during smog alerts, diesel vehicle actually clean the air as the vehicle out emissions are lower than ambient air quality. Thus there is no benefit for reducing emissions further and far less to no benefit of so-called ZEV’s.
This further extends the crossover point for a ZEV vs ICE vehicle to the point where it is meaningless to introduce ZEV’s considering the environmental damage done in producing these vehicles.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Dr. Bob
April 12, 2023 3:44 pm

All true, but why no push-back from “big oil” and big auto?? Why? Why? Why?

April 12, 2023 12:32 pm

And of course just as scary as the national industrial suicide the wokes and green idiots are inflicting on us is the absolute head in the sand attitude toward all of our national security. Both allies and enemies are aligning them selves with China! France just signaled as much too. Screw em. Once China Russia India the middle east finish formulating their final plan- they are going to get real aggressive. The Green idiots fiddle while Rome burns.

John V. Wright
April 12, 2023 1:43 pm

Neil, with you all the way. Interestingly there is a huge failure of journalism running alongside all of this – I write as a former qualified senior journalist (now retired) who is appalled at the lack of enquiry from national reporters.

For example. The U.K. is committed to Net Zero. There is a big drive to stop using natural gas to heat our homes and instead install expensive (and useless) heat pumps. But any semi-numerate journalist could work out that the co2 produced by heating homes in the U.K. amounts to – are you ready for this? – 0.00000204% of the earth’s atmosphere. Yes, that’s five 0s to the right of the decimal point.

So. Any journalist can work that out – from officially published figures. But none of them have. Not one. Or at least if they have and were going to write a story about it they have been dissuaded by their editors. Yet it would be a huge story.

We live in troubling times.

Reply to  John V. Wright
April 13, 2023 12:26 am

Yet again!

The reason no-one writes about this is that it is both scientifically and politically irrelevant. It doesn’t matter to anyone what percent of total atmospheric CO2 content is emitted by the UK or anyone else in any given year. No current arguments in science or policy turn on it. You may think they should, but they do not.

The question on which UK policy on home heating turns is simple: what proportion of annual global emissions is due to UK home heating?

UK home heating is about 14% of UK emissions. UK emissions are about 450 million tons a year. UK home heating is therefore about 63 million tons a year. Global emissions are about 37 billion.

UK home heating is doing 0.17% of current global emissions. Suppose you took everyone to heat pumps and reduced emssions by half. Then the reduction in global emissions would be 0.08%.

Either way, you go totally net zero or only half way, it is obviously not enough to make any difference. And this is the powerful argument because its impossible to argue with.

Whereas your statement compares apples and oranges and makes peoples eyes glaze over. And this is why the press rightly does not keep on about it.

To see the irrelevance of your statement to the real question, consider this. China emits around 11 billion tons a year. That is about 24 times what the UK emits. You could equally well say that China only emits annually 0.00004968% of the global atmospheric CO2 total, and everyone’s eyes would just glaze over in exactly the same way and for the same reason.

April 12, 2023 2:12 pm


One Neil lock has determined that he doesn’t accept the overwhelming evidence supporting climate change.

The rest follows. And it’s very long, isn’t it? Very long…

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 12, 2023 3:01 pm

Funny thing, I can’t recall anywhere in this article where he disputes climate change, what he does dispute is the claim of a climate change emergency with no evidence!!
Perhaps you can enlighten us where this emergency is???

Reply to  aussiecol
April 13, 2023 5:13 am

Comprehension isn’t TFN’s strong point, evidently. Assuming he actually read it.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 13, 2023 12:32 am

The problem is that there is no evidence to support the claims of any sort of climate emergency. But even if there were one, the measures proposed in response to the alleged emergency are mostly impossible of implementation. And even were they possible, they would be totally ineffective.

As a for instance, the UK is trying to get to Net Zero because of the supposed climate emergency. Its annual emissions, about 450 million tons, are currently about 1.2% of the global total.

Even if it could get to Net Zero by banning ICE cars and moving everyone to heat pumps and building huge numbers of wind turbines, it cannot have any effect on global emissions, which will continue to rise whatever it does.

The thing is plainly totally irrational. Its doing at vast expense things which the slightest scrutiny shows cannot have any effect on the supposed problem. Even if they work, which the evidence is they will not.

Neil Lock
Reply to  michel
April 13, 2023 3:59 am

Michel, you are right that it is all completely irrational. The cynic in me thinks that the desire for vast expense may be what is driving all the hype, and the policies that spring from it. That could explain why Kwasi Kwarteng, who wasn’t going that way, was removed as chancellor. Something I uncovered when researching the last of this set of essays suggests that the same might have happened to Sajid Javid too.

Mark BLR
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 13, 2023 4:21 am

One Neil lock has determined that he doesn’t accept the overwhelming evidence supporting climate change.

It is possible that you are genuinely baffled as to why your “perfectly reasonable” post has attracted so many downvotes already.

I am only one person out of 8 billion on planet Earth, but maybe some of those “down-clickers” had similar reactions to my own on reading the above.

– – – – –

1) The phrase “climate change” (CC) means different things to different people.

Which version is “one TheFinalNail” (TFN) currently using ?

i) The IPCC version (CC = Anthropogenic CC plus Natural CC)
ii) The UNFCCC version (CC = Anthropogenic CC … and only Anthropogenic CC)
iii) Other. Please specify, and provide a reference (or preferably a link).

– – – – –

2) TFN failed to give a single example of the “overwhelming evidence” of which they spoke.

Please provide at least three (3) concrete examples of the “overwhelming evidence” TFN had in mind when TFN was typing the above words into TFN’s computer.

– – – – –

In the latest AR6 WG-I assessment report the IPCC summarised the prevailing (in 2020/2021) state of “the climate science literature” as follows (section, “The likelihood of reference scenarios, scenario uncertainty and storylines”, page 239) :

Among the five core scenarios used most in this report, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 are explicit ‘no-climate-policy’ scenarios (Gidden et al., 2019; Cross-Chapter Box 1.4, Table 1), assuming a carbon price of zero. These future ‘baseline’ scenarios are hence counterfactuals

NB : The “new” (CMIP6 for AR6, 2021) SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 emissions pathways neatly bracket the “old” (CMIP5 for AR5, 2013) RCP8.5 pathway.

3a) Does this mean that TFN has “determined that” that the IPCC “doesn’t accept the overwhelming evidence supporting climate change” ?
3b) If “Yes”, please explain in detail exactly how the IPCC does that.

4) Does TFN now “accept” that RCP8.5 is now “counterfactual”, and that all media headlines — and scientific paper abstracts — starting with something like “Under a high-emissions scenario …” should be treated as either hysterical fearmongering (by journalists / editors) or purely theoretical speculation (by scientists) ?

April 12, 2023 5:05 pm

Very nice Neil. Government at every level is out of control. As I have said many times administrators, bureaucrats and political offices do not make these decisions. People make them, it is past time to call out these individuals, let people know who they are, what their names are, how badly individuals are being hurt by these really bad decisions with no facts or science to back them up. These criminals need to be personally held accountable and punished. The sooner they are confronted and made to stop the better it will be for them. Sooner or later they are going to hurt people who don’t take kindly to being hurt and they are sure to take matters into their own hands. It won’t be pretty.

April 12, 2023 8:38 pm

In my researches, I have made some amazing, and unsettling, discoveries about how dishonestly the UK government has treated us. But I’m sure that those in other countries will be able to find parallels from their own experiences.

“AEMO is not a small expert organisation anymore. It’s a corporation and I think ministers have frankly lost the plot in the transmission task. they need to get involved.”

“The Australian people want ministers to be accountable for decisions and I think they’ve been keen to pass that off to other organisations and to hide behind that.”
Western Victorian major transmission projects ‘monumental mistake’, warn energy experts (

The vision splendid is too fantasmagorical for any policymaker to get their head around and therein lies the road to disaster. It’s not necessarily deliberate dishonesty so much as human hubris that such an undertaking is remotely manageable even when convinced of the necessity. If the necessity is questionable then doubly so.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights